1954-02-11

Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, since yesterday afternoon I have been rather remorseful, and I wonder if I have not been unfair to the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), who is one of our genial colleagues, an able lawyer and a brilliant debater. We have to live together, work together and suffer together, and it is impossible for members of parliament not to observe the amenities when life is spent together. For my own punishment, I have decided not to mention a word which belongs to the king's English and is highly parliamentary. I shall not use the word "Tory" for a month.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker,
1	can only say that the testimonial from the hon. member is highly appreciated, but was entirely unsolicited. Since, however, he has imposed this penance upon himself, I shall reciprocate by refraining for a month from using the word "Grit".


Jean-François Pouliot: I did it just to clear my
conscience.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Noseworthy:: How many of the 145 pensioners who were serving in the regular forces before June 1, 1944, and have been released since September 1946, with less than 20 years' service, were graduates of the Royal Military College?


Mr. Blanchette:: According to the records available in the Department of National Defence, 6 of the 145 pensioners referred to are graduates of the Royal Military College, that is approximately 5 per cent, whereas the number of graduates of the Royal Military College serving as officers in the Canadian army in 1944 was 961, that is approximately
2	07 per cent of the total of 34,638.


CANADIAN ARSENAL, LINDSAY
Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	How many people are employed at present at the Canadian arsenal in Lindsay, Ontario?
2.	How many employees were on the payroll in September 1951, September 1952, September 1953?


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: 1.	570.
2.	September 1951, 506; September 1952, 692; September 1953, 588.


TOMATO PULP
Mr. Lennard:: How many pounds of tomato pulp or paste were imported into Canada from Italy in the year 1953?


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: Tomato pulp or paste is not separately classified and there are no records that would show the separate importations of this commodity.


SHEEP AND LAMBS
Mr. Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough):: What was the population of sheep and lambs (a) m Canada; (b) in Nova Scotia, during each of the years 1938 to 1953, both inclusive?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The number of sheep and lambs in Nova Scotia and Canada as at June 1, 1938-1953 were as follows:
Nova Scotia Canada
June 1, 1938	
145,500	3,046,800June 1,	1939	
142,900	2,911,400June 1,	1940	
142,600	2,886,600June 1,	1941	
138,200	2,840,100June 1,	1942	
149,000	3,196,900June 1,	1943	
161,600	3,458,600June 1,	1944	
161,300	3,725,500June 1,	1945	
160,200	3,621,800June 1,	1946	
154,200	2,941,500June 1,	1947	
138,000	2,706,900June 1,	1948	
130,700	2,246,800June 1,	1949	
123,300	2,075,400June 1,	1950	
131,600	2,015,000June 1,	1951	
95,400	1,461,200June 1,	1952	
83,700	1,588,200June 1,	1953	
95,000	1,721,300
Note: The estimates for 1942 to 1950 inclusive are currently being revised in line with census data for 1941 and 1951.

Questions


CANADIAN ARTISTS-GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Michener:: 1.	In the past 20 years have any grants, annuities or like payments been made by the Canadian government to or in aid of (a) Canadian authors, painters or other artists, and (b) theatrical, operatic or ballet companies or groups?
2.	If so, what was the total amount of all such payments in each of the last 20 years?
3.	Who were the individual recipients and how much was paid to each in the past five years?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	(a) Yes; (b) No.
2.	$54,000.
3.	$4,000 annually to the Canadian Writers' Foundation, Inc.


MALLEABLE IRON PIPE FITTINGS
Mr. Starr:: What was the total amount of malleable iron pipe fittings imported into Canada month by month, during the year 1953 and in January 1954, from (a) United States; (b) United Kingdom; (c) Japan?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Information not available. Malleable iron pipe fittings are not separately classified in Canadian import trade statistics but are included in the general item of "Pipe fittings, n.o.p.".
Canadian imports by countries under this general item during the months January to October 1953, are as follows:
United	United Germany	Total,Month	Kingdom	States	West	Japan	all countries1953	$	$	$	$	$January 	. . . 38,308	356,529	557	8,892	404,286February 	. .. 42,980	344,521	1,618	389,099March 	. .. 21,826	415,687	34	1,245	438,792April 	. .. 24,948	356,323	429	3,967	385,667May 	. .. 38,239	456,095	8,558	502,892June 	. . . 47,682	403,604	4,147	455,433July 	... 32,952	382,260	100	31,544	446.856August 	36,920	335,545	1,290	25,421	399,176September 	46,482	434,280	2,040	482,802October 	52,609	420,176	12,042	484,827November 	not	yet available	December 	not	yet available	Totals 	... $382,926	$3,905,020	$6,557	$95,327	$4,389,830


SHIPBUILDING BOUNTY, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Power (St. John's West):: What amounts of money were paid in Newfoundland on account of shipbuilding bounty, during each of the years 1949 to 1953?


Mr. McCann:: Assuming that reference is to assistance in construction of fishing vessels of the dragger or long-liner type, no amounts have up to date been paid in Newfoundland. Five applications are pending.


TOMATO JUICE AND PULP
Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many pounds of tomato juice were imported into Canada from the United States in the year 1953?
2.	How many pounds of tomato pulp or paste were imported into Canada from the United States in the year 1953?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 1 and 2. Tomato juice and tomato pulp or paste are not separately classified and there are no records that would show the separate importations of these commodities.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: 1.	Did the federal authorities make any land surveys in the village of Kipling, Saskatchewan, during the years 1952 or 1953?
2.	If so, what was the purpose of these surveys?


MARITIME PROVINCES-DREDGING
Mr. Nowlan:: 1.	How many contracts for dredging were awarded in the maritime provinces, exclusive of Newfoundland, during the calendar year 1953?
2.	What was the location of each such dredging operation?
3.	Which of these, if any, were awarded without tender?
4.	Where tenders were called, what were the names of the firms or individuals submitting each such tender, the unit price or total amount thereoi and the names of those to whom contracts were awarded?
5.	What was the total amount paid to each such contractor and the quantity of dredging performed!



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Before the orders of the day are called, Mr. Speaker, I am going to disturb the tranquillity of the house for a moment by asking leave, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 31, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the serious and mounting unemployment situation now facing this country and the urgent need for government action to prevent further economic distress.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has moved the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the serious and mounting unemployment situation now facing this country and the urgent need for government action to prevent further economic distress.
The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice that he was going to make this motion. Therefore, though I did not wish to take advantage of his courtesy, I had a chance to look at the authorities. While I did not know the exact terms of the motion he was to move, I realize now that according to the terms of standing order 31 a matter which is to be proposed, if the adjournment is to be granted, must be one of recent occurrence; and it must be so important that the public interest would suffer if the matter were not debated immediately.
It strikes me that from time to time, ever since this session was inaugurated, references have been made to unemployment. Questions have been asked of the minister, and he has answered them.
It seems to me therefore that this is a situation which is not of the type coming within the terms of the provision imposed by standing order 31. I agree with the hon. member that any matter concerning unemployment in this country is one which is serious, and it might be important to debate it-but not under standing order 31. It is not the kind of situation which justifies the putting aside of the important matters which were announced by the leader of the house for consideration today. I see on the order paper, for instance, that today we shall be considering the second reading of a bill respecting the Canadian forces, another bill respecting benefits for members of the Canadian forces, and so on.
Inquiries of the Ministry
As the matter is one of a general character, and not of recent occurrence, I do not think we should put aside the orders announced for today for the purpose of adjourning the house. Therefore with great regret, and with respect, I have to give it as my opinion that this does not meet the requirements of standing order 31, and I cannot allow the motion to stand.


Clarence Gillis: If I might be permitted to say this, while I am not going to quarrel with Your Honour's ruling-because that is your prerogative-I am reasonably sure that if I had an opportunity to discuss the matter I could convince even you that it was of urgent public importance and necessitated review by members of the House of Commons. However, at another time we may have a chance to do this.
Right Hen. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, if I might add a word, it is the intention on Monday to move to go into supply in respect of one or two departments. I should think that would be an occasion when the hon. member could discuss this very important subject. Then there is another point. I cannot be in the house this afternoon, and I should like to say a few words on the subject myself.


Clarence Gillis: I trust the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) will not cut in on us.



WATER POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Batilefords):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. My question arises partly from what has transpired in the house within the last few weeks, and partly as a result of a lengthy telegram I received last night from the mayor of Prince Albert. I shall not read it to the house, but it states that they have up-to-date facilities for the treatment of water in the city. They have tried activated carbon and chlorine dioxide since last Saturday, and there has been no improvement.
They are asking that the federal government pass a law which would cover this situation. I am asking this government, through the Acting Prime Minister, whether the government will consider the introduction of legislation immediately which would prevent any industry dumping any matter in any interprovincial river which would cause the pollution of the water in that river.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite clear as to the constitutional position, but it is my understanding, from discussions we have had in the house, that the jurisdiction is provincial. However, I shall have the matter looked into and determine whether it would be proper legislation for the government to consider.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the fact that some United States immigration entry offices in Canada are to be closed, does the Canadian immigration branch contemplate closing Canadian immigration entry offices in the United States?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I do not think we contemplate that. As a matter of fact, subject to correction, I do not believe we have any offices in the United States.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think you
have one in Chicago.



VETERANS LAND ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the Department of Veterans Affairs recently issued a directive to young farmers who took up land under the Veterans Land Act that they must quit jobs which they have taken for the winter as a means of helping them to get their land clear and their indebtedness paid, and get back on the land?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The answer is no. No such directive has been issued by the administration under the Veterans Land Act.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Is he in a position to make a statement as to the position of


federal income tax payers in the province of Quebec as a result of the decision of the legislature in that province to levy a provincial income tax?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the only information I have concerning the proposed tax is what I have been able to glean from stories in the newspapers. However, I understand the government of the province of Quebec proposes to impose a personal income tax-


Mr. Knowles:: On the minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: -and that it is to take the form of some percentage of federal income tax, whatever that may be. Of course, successive reductions in the federal income tax have made it possible for any province which cares to do so to enter the field, the rates now being approximately half what they were at the peak of taxation during the war.
So far as the federal income tax payer is concerned, he will be able, under the Income Tax Act, to take credit for any provincial tax paid up to 5 per cent of his federal tax liability.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask the Minister of Transport. Has the Prince Rupert drydock and shipyard been put up for sale? If so, what steps have been taken to see that whoever purchases it will keep it in operation?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The hon. member was good enough to telephone my office to the effect that he was going to ask this question. The answer to the first part of it is yes, the Canadian National Railways are putting the Prince Rupert drydock up for sale. They are doing it because they find that it is being operated at a tremendous loss and, furthermore, that it would take substantial sums of money to put it into repair. It is not in good repair at the moment.
With reference to the second question my reply is that the Canadian National Railways are selling the drydock without stipulations. They are selling it in the same manner they would sell any other asset of the railways. It is hoped by the Canadian National Railways that a purchaser will be found who will be willing to operate the drydock. I think I should add here, in fairness to my colleague the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Apple-whaite), that he has asked me to see a

delegation to discuss this matter, and I have agreed to do so, together with two or three of my colleagues.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask a supplementary question? The sale is not under a condition that the drydock and shipyard must not be demolished?


Lionel Chevrier: The yard is being put up for sale by the Canadian National Railways. I have seen the terms. I have not them before me, and I would not like to give them from memory, but I should be glad to send my hon. friend a copy of the press release, together with the notice of tender. He will see there all the terms, together with the assets that are being sold.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? In view of the continuing lay-offs by the Canadian National Railways, can the minister make any statement that will allay the fears of railway workers that still further lay-offs are in prospect?


Lionel Chevrier: I think I have already given to the house some indication of the position. I can say at this time that these lay-offs have been necessitated because of a decline in traffic-I speak now, of course, only for the Canadian National Railways- due to a number of factors, one of them being the decline in the traffic in the United States. There are a number of connections made by the Canadian National Railways at border points with United States railways, and the traffic coming in from there has declined substantially. There is also a substantial decline in other commodities in several parts of Canada having to do with coal and grain; and there is also the factor, I am sorry to say, of dieseliza-tion, which has added to the difficulties.
I do not know what the actual figures are at the moment, but the last figures I got were in the neighbourhood of 1,500, and I have not seen the picture for this week. I know that the officers of the Canadian National Railways are most anxious to take on men just as soon as traffic conditions change. If there is any upswing in the traffic, then I am sure these men who have had to be laid off, unfortunately, will be taken on again.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: The minister gave a figure of the number of men who had been laid off by the Canadian National Railways. Is that figure all-inclusive, or is it in addition to the number given by his parliamentary assistant on January 22, which was 800?


Lionel Chevrier: The parliamentary assistant of course was correct as of that date. I am giving the figure I last saw which was one day last week, and it was in the neighbourhood of 1,500.


Howard Charles Green: That includes the 800 referred to before?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Mr. Winch:: I think we had better revise the ruling with respect to urgency in the unemployment situation. The situation is deteriorating rapidly, and seems to have deteriorated seriously in the past few minutes.



FISCAL AND MONETARY MEASURES TO TAKE CARE OF UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Since I have not given him notice of it perhaps he would prefer to take this as notice and answer tomorrow. Can he tell the house something as to the fiscal and monetary policies which the Minister of Labour tells us are the means proposed to take care of unemployment?



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask
the Acting Prime Minister whether the government is in possession of any information which it is in a position to pass on to the house regarding the possible date when a decision might be handed down by the federal power commission of the United States on the application of Westcoast Transmission Company for a permit to export gas, and any other information the government has in its possession regarding this matter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government has no official information on the point, but unofficially I have been informed both from Washington and from the office of the pipe-line company that a decision is expected early in April.
1984	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry WHEAT



INQUIRY AS TO INITIATION OF FUTURES MARKET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the statement made on the farm radio forum by the United States assistant secretary of agriculture to the effect that consideration is being given by Canada to initiating the futures market again for trading in wheat? Will the minister assure the wheat producers that no consideration is being given to opening the Winnipeg grain exchange for trading in wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The attention of the minister was drawn to this article a few days ago by the hon. member. I had not been able to see the article, but I now have it from him. I do not think it is worded quite as strongly as is suggested in the hon. member's statement. The speaker said he understood the subject might be considered. I may say it has not been considered by myself, and as far as I know no consideration is being given to it by the government.
(Translation):



POST OFFICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) one or two questions. First, at what date will the 40-hour week be implemented in the case of postal employees, and will these 40 hours extend over five consecutive days?
In the second place, when new hours are put into effect-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might wait for an answer to his first question and then ask the second.


Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. The five-day 40-hour week will be implemented on the date which has been announced and which was discussed during a recent debate; it is April 1, 1954. In regard to the second part of the question, the answer is, not necessarily.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: When these new hours are in force, could the Postmaster General tell me whether they will apply to all postal employees throughout Canada, including those in Quebec?
[Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) .1


Mr. Cole:: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to be patient, I believe that within a day or two the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will make an official statement on the matter, after the civil service commission has submitted its report to the treasury board.
(Text):


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct to the Minister of Finance a supplementary question on this subject? Is his own city of Montreal on the list for the five-day 40-hour week for post office workers?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I hope so.
(Translation):



REMARKS CONCERNING THE ISSUE OF UNILINGUAL CHEQUES TO CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another question of the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote). First, is the minister aware that students employed in a temporary capacity during the Christmas season at the Verdun post office were paid with unilingual cheques?
Secondly, has the minister taken steps so that the cheques printed for his department will hereafter be printed in the two official languages of the country?


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a question of an urgent character. I believe that the hon. member should have it placed on the order paper.
(Text):



EXPLOSIVES ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 9, consideration in committee of Bill No. 83, to amend the Explosives Act-Mr. Prudham-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 4-Authorized explosives only.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Tuesday we were considering clause 4. Shall the clause carry?


Mr. Nowlan:: No.


Mr. Prudham:: Shortly before ten o'clock on Tuesday, when this bill was last before the committee, the hon. member for Calgary North made inquiries about regulations applying to the purchase and use of explosives by a farmer. No permit is required to purchase explosives in any quantity, except when the purchase is made for resale. If the quantity bought exceeds 150 pounds the explosives will have to be stored in a magazine and licensed under this act. If the



II, 1954

[Stage Direction]
quantity is less than 150 pounds and is for private use it must be stored in a place and under conditions as described in the explosives regulations, part 13 of the consolidation of the Explosives Act and regulations. I have some copies of the act and the regulations here if the hon. member would like to have a copy.
The hon. member for Peterborough asked if it was lawful to carry explosives in automobiles. There is nothing in the act to prohibit a person from carrying explosives in a private automobile, but if the quantity exceeds five pounds there are certain regulations which must be observed. If the automobile is a public carrier, such as a taxi, it would be unlawful to carry explosives at all.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: The reason I asked that question is that quite often a farmer or someone may require explosives to blow up a stump, and he cannot have a public carrier transport it for him as he may have to go 20 or 30 miles to get it. He carries it in his own car. With the five-pound limit would he have to have a special place to store it?


George Prudham: Yes.


George Clyde Nowlan: This clause 4 repeals subsection 1 of section 5 of the act and substitutes a new subsection. The old subsection contained the words "except as provided in this act" and the new subsection contains the words "except as provided by the regulations". I do not think there is any other change in the wording of the subsection. I am wondering why the minister felt it necessary to delete the word "act" and substitute therefor the word "regulations".
I have protested against this practice before, so I shall not labour the matter at this time. This statute has been on the books for many years and it spelled out in part what was prohibited, so there must be some good reason why that should now be abolished and we should simply have the word "regulations" substituted therefor. It will be impossible now by reading the act to find out what is prohibited and what is not. We are simply having a blanket change, taking out the word "act" and substituting therefor the word "regulations".
No doubt the minister and his advisers will draw up proper regulations, but if you want to find out what is in the regulations you have to go to some back corner of the Canada Gazette. I am speaking rather feelingly now as a lawyer practising in the country, because when you have to deal with these things you like to find them in the statute. I contend 83276-126
Explosives Act
that there should be something more in the statute than the blanket power to the minister to make regulations. For years the statute has prohibited certain things, and I should like to know why this change is being made. The Minister of Justice is in the chamber; he has heard me make the same complaint before. However, I am afraid it fell on deaf ears.
In my opinion this is a wrong principle against which this house should protest. There should not be a continual repealing of sections and substituting therefor of regulations. This is the most flagrant case I have ever seen, because all it does is take out the word "act" and substitute therefor the word "regulations". I do think the minister should give some logical and forceful explanation as to why this is being done. Otherwise I shall have to protest against it.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, the main reason that "regulations" is being substituted for "act" in this subsection is that in these days of fast development in the resources field, conditions are continually changing. If all the regulations were incorporated in the act it would be most inflexible and would not meet changing conditions.


George Clyde Nowlan: To use a slang expression, I will buy that to a certain extent. I realize that conditions are changing and that the minister should have power to deal with special circumstances or emergencies which require regulations. But there are basic conditions which should be governed by acts of parliament. That is what we are supposed to be here for. That is why we pass legislation.
This argument about changing conditions should apply also to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labour. Every minister is faced with changing conditions. If we are going to accept that argument we had better close up this place and rent it, and simply pass a blanket act to say that we are abdicating and hereafter the government can pass regulations. I do not think we want to do that. I do not think we should do that.
I am perfectly willing to admit that the minister should have the power to make regulations, and I am perfectly prepared to leave it to his good judgment; but I do not think he should have the power to substitute himself and his regulations for what heretofore has been an act of parliament.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add just a word on this subject of regulations. As the hon. member says, it is not merely this power that is given; it is given in such a way that we must object. For example, in connection with the housing

Explosives Act
bill we were not going to be able to see the regulations until the legislation was passed. In other words we were going to have to act blindly, just like a lot of half-informed children, in passing that legislation.
What the hon. member has said is only too true. We have to be sensible about this. We realize there must be some flexibility, but the great danger of legislation of this kind is that we are to have a general section in the act and then everything else goes into the regulations.


Mr. Adamson:: There is a question or two I should like to ask concerning authorized explosives. First of all I should like to have some information as to the regulations governing fireworks. What is the maximum charge limit, in ounces, in fireworks? What are the limitations in connection with the composition of the explosive? What is the maximum amount of fireworks that may be transported at a time?
I mention these things because the Hand Fireworks Company is near where I live. Unfortunately there have been one or two accidents at the fireworks plant, and there have been other accidents in connection with the sale of fireworks. I believe in some of the American states fireworks are almost prohibited. I should like to know what the regulations are, and if they have been amended. Have any additional restrictions been put in force recently?


George Prudham: The regulations governing fireworks will be found in part II, regulations 200 and 201. I do not think there can be any hard and fast rule, any blanket ruling covering fireworks. I was out to the new explosives laboratory near Uplands airport recently when they were testing explosives that had been sent in from Japan to see if they were safe and under what conditions they would be safe. The department decides under what conditions and in what quantities these explosives can be shipped or stored or used.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Is there any place where the general public can see these regulations? They are being amended and changed all the time, and some consideration should be given to this phase of the matter. Any hardware store or any other store selling fireworks should have them available.


George Prudham: Any explosives or fireworks manufactured by Canadian manufacturers are closely classified, and anything that is imported is also classified after testing at our laboratory. The hon. member has asked how the public would know there is a list of authorized explosives, including fireworks,

issued by the department. Such a list is available to merchants and any member of the public who is interested.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I want to ask a question about dynamite, and the storage and disposal of old explosives. Has the maximum period of storage in regard to explosives been shortened? I mention this because of a recent strike at the Hollinger gold mine, not the most recent one but one prior to that. There was a considerable amount of dynamite underground when the men went on strike, and there was some question of disposal. Special volunteers had to go underground to move the explosives because they had been stored there. Under such conditions nitroglycerin tends to concentrate, being the heaviest part of the dynamite.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, conditions such as the hon. member has mentioned come under provincial regulations.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I know there is a provincial mines act which takes care of that sort of thing, but under this act is the storage of dynamite or other explosives in mines considered at all?


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, this department does not regulate the storage of explosives in mines. That comes under provincial regulations. We have authority under this act to destroy explosives which have deteriorated and are unsafe, and where they constitute a danger to the public safety. I believe that in Ontario the provincial regulations are very well administered, and they are quite adequate as regards public safety; but if we have reason to doubt that we can apply the regulations under this act.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Then this act is ultra vires of the provincial mines acts? Surely a federal government statute dealing with explosives should also deal with the major use of explosives in Canada, namely in the mining industry. It seems to me that if this act does not deal with the storage and use of explosives in mines it is rather lacking in some respects.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, to answer my hon. friend's question more specifically I would refer him to page 2 of the regulations, chapter 7, section 2, subsection (h), paragraph (i) which reads as follows:
(h)	"magazine" means any building, storehouse, structure or place in which any explosive is kept or stored, but does not include
(i)	a place at or in and for the use of a mine or quarry in a province in which provision is made by the law of such province for the efficient inspection of mines and quarries and explosives used in connection therewith . . .


Agar Rodney Adamson: Therefore this act has really nothing to do with the major use of explosives in Canada?


George Prudham: Not when the provincial government has made provisions.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Are there any provincial governments that do not have a mines act?


George Prudham: Our department inspects mine magazines in New Brunswick and Newfoundland by invitation.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask one more question about the percentage of nitroglycerin or gelignite or the so-called safe explosives used especially in the coal mining industry. In that industry explosives are used which have a low concentration of nitroglycerin or a low explosive content or flash point. They are especially designed so as not to cause fire in coal mines. Can the minister say what the composition of such explosives is?


George Prudham: In addition to standard explosives, certain explosives are designed for specific purposes. The hon. member has asked for percentages but I am afraid I cannot give him that, though I would be glad to pass on the information later.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I rather wondered about that because there has been an alteration recently in the United Kingdom standards as regards underground explosives, and I wondered whether some similar action was contemplated here.


George Prudham: We are really prohibited by the act from giving that kind of information. I would refer the hon. member to section 25 regarding the disclosure of confidential information, which states:
Any person employed under this act who without due authority from the minister discloses any confidential information is guilty of an offence . . .


Agar Rodney Adamson: But surely the content of explosives which is designated-


George Prudham: Manufacturers have their own formulae.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I realize that, but surely in this act there must be overriding regulations which limit the percentage and govern the quantity of nitroglycerin in any explosive used underground.


George Prudham: Every explosive is tested on its merits. Each manufacturer would have his own formulae, which would be tested and certified on performance.


Agar Rodney Adamson: But in this act then there is no limitation as to the concentration of the active blasting element in an explosive?
83276-126i
Explosives Act


George Prudham: No; each manufacturer submits his own sample. I had a man in my office a couple of weeks ago who claimed he had an entirely new formula which would revolutionize the explosives business, and we have asked him to submit samples, which he has not done as yet. He may not have any nitroglycerin in his explosive, but I do not know.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 4 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have one question which perhaps the minister has already dealt with but if so I did not hear him and I would like to put it again. Perhaps he dealt with it in answer to my hon. friend from York West. Two or three years ago there was a factory near Halifax engaged in the manufacture of dynamite. After it had been closed down for some years there was an explosion there. Perhaps the minister's officials would be conversant with the details. Some men were around at the time, out hunting as a matter of fact, and there was a dreadful explosion in which they were blown to pieces and everything there was shattered. Apparently there had been a certain amount of dynamite left there in storage. It had been there for years, had deteriorated and gas had generated with the result that the explosion took place. A very close personal friend of mine was killed there at that time.
I want to know whether such a matter would come under the control of this department. Was there no control in that case, or what was done to inspect such premises and thus prevent the explosion taking place?


George Prudham: I understand it would come under this department. That particular case was investigated, and the report is available if the hon. member would like a copy.


George Clyde Nowlan: Are inspections carried out from time to time by the minister's department in regard to factories where such explosives are stored? How long before this explosion took place had that particular factory been inspected?


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, in that particular instance the factory had not been operating since this act came into force. Had it been a factory during the life of this act we would have inspected it.


George Clyde Nowlan: So no inspection had taken place at that time


George Prudham: No.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 4 carry?

Explosives Act


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-No import without permit.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, again this is an amendment substituting one subsection for another. I think there is a rather important change here. The old section-I say the old section but I mean the one now in force-says:
No person shall import any explosive into Canada, other than safety cartridges, without a permit issued under this section.
This new clause says:
Except as provided by the regulations, no person shall import any explosive into Canada without a permit issued under this section.
In other words, safety cartridges are now considered to be explosives, I take it. I am thinking, for instance, of the thousands of hunters who come into the maritime provinces in the fall of the year-I refer to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-to hunt. Many of them bring in their own rifles and their own ammunition. Under the act as it stands they can do so. I looked up the definition of safety cartridge, and that would include the ordinary commercial cartridge that you buy. I understand it is now proposed that they cannot do that.
This will be a good thing for the local merchant, the hardware man or the corner store man who is going to sell ammunition and equipment. I can see an argument that can be made for that man. But on the other hand I think a good many tourists are going to resent the fact that they cannot bring in their own ammunition. We all know what some of these follows are like. They have their own high-powered rifles and have special ammunition for them. Surely there is no danger, is there, in connection with safety cartridges; or has experience shown that there is-and if so what-and is that the reason their importation is now prohibited?


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, the change is in section 9, subsection 2, which reads as follows:
No person shall import any explosive into Canada, other than safety cartridges, without a permit issued under this section.
The chief inspector of explosives advises that provision by regulation for safety cartridges was made to cover the case of tourists coming into Canada to hunt. It has been found that large quantities of safety cartridges-that is small arms ammunition-were brought into the country by wholesale dealers and jobbers over which the chief inspector of explosives had no control. Much of this ammunition has been found to be faulty and
[The Chairman.]
serious accidents have occurred. In order to prevent the recurrence of such accidents and to maintain better control over the quality of such ammunition brought into Canada it has been suggested that by regulation the quantity be limited to a reasonable amount.
I do not know just exactly what that amount will be. The amount suggested to me was 2,000 rounds, which would suit almost any tourist.
This will be subject to changes based on practical experience, of course. The explosives division is equipped with the necessary machinery and is capable of carrying out proper inspection for quality on safety cartridges; and before allowing the shipment of large quantities into Canada. Samples could be obtained for inspection and analysis without hardship on anyone.


George Clyde Nowlan: Then it is the intention of the minister to permit tourists to bring ammunition into Canada under the regulation?


George Prudham: Yes, but not for resale.


George Clyde Nowlan: I presume that at the border you will have to have inspectors, or will have to delegate to the customs officers the task of controlling that traffic. Will that be the set-up?


George Prudham: The customs officers would act for us.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 11-Peace officer may arrest person committing offence.
Agar Rodney Adamson: In connection with this clause there is a point I want to bring to the attention of the committee. It concerns a matter which is of some considerable importance, namely the clandestine transportation of explosives in baggage by air. It arises from the now famous or infamous case of the destruction of the Canadian Pacific airliner by a time bomb, by a group of assassins in Quebec.
Since those multiple murders there have been no less than seven other attempts. Some of them have succeeded in destroying the aircraft by placing explosives in baggage. I think there have been three which caused multiple fatalities and four which did not, either because the bomb did not explode or because the attempts were in other ways detected. The subject is dealt with in some detail-I say this for the benefit of hon. members who may be interested-in the New Yorker magazine of last October or November. The article deals with this crime in some detail and elaborates on the facts

of the case. The story is headed-taking the words, I think, of Mr. Justice Tremblay in Quebec-"This crime has no name".
There seems to me to be an opportunity here for this sort of thing to go on. In this act there does seem to be a loophole which allows explosives to be placed clandestinely on aircraft, although it is against the law-and of course it is murder-to do so.
I believe those who are responsible for the handling of freight and baggage on aircraft should be empowered under this act to inspect without warrant any baggage placed upon an aircraft which carries passengers.
I realize that this is perhaps a restriction of the privilege of shipping express and other cargo by air, but I also realize that no legitimate shipper would object to having his goods inspected. I believe there is no worse or more horrible crime than that of the mass destruction of innocent people through this method. I should therefore like to move an amendment to clause 11- it would be clause 11 (3)-in these terms:
Any air line operating in Canada may appoint one or more persons at each airport who shall he empowered under this act to inspect or open any parcel, package or other object for carriage on any aircraft carrying passengers.
I realize that we have the Criminal Code.
I also realize that we have regulations. A regulation and the Criminal Code are not going to be much protection to people who may be killed in the destruction of an aircraft. I believe there should be some method under which those who are responsible for transporting air cargo or air express in a passenger-carrying aircraft are empowered to inspect the cargo or baggage before shipment.


George Prudham: The hon. member has
brought up a very important point, but I think perhaps the situation is fully covered by the existing regulations. I should like to read from the Department of Transport air regulations, part VIII, section 1:
Explosives and other dangerous articles, other than those necessary for the operation or navigation of the aircraft or for the safety of the personnel or passengers on board, shall not be carried ^ in an aircraft except as may be directed by the minister.
No person shall send or take upon an aircraft any explosives without distinctly marking their nature on the outside of the package containing such explosives, and otherwise give notice thereof to the person in charge of the aircraft whose duty it is to receive such goods.
No aircraft carrying explosives shall carry a passenger other than the owner of the explosives or his accredited representatives; but this requirement does not apply to ammunition permitted for hunting or sporting purposes or as emergency equipment.
Explosives Act
Under the Explosives Act, section 17, we find the following:
There may be appointed in the manner authorized by law a chief inspector of explosives, together with such other inspectors and chemists as are necessary for carrying out the provisions of this act.
The officers of this department have discussed this very problem, and propose to consult with the enforcement officers of the Department of Transport to see if they will co-operate in the inspection of express and baggage that goes on board passenger aircraft. They could then be appointed deputy inspectors under this act by authority of the section I have just quoted.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am glad something is being done about it. My amendment is a preventive one. While there are regulations, and while the shipping of explosives would contravene both acts, I still feel there is no adequate method of inspection to prevent the occurrence of similar crimes to that of the Guay incident, or whatever it is called, which resulted in the death of 27 people on a Canadian Pacific airliner. The crime is so horrible, and unfortunately it has happened on other occasions, that for the safety of the travelling public I should like to see this regulation put into the act. If the minister could see his way clear to adopting my amendment, I think it would be very useful for the safety of the travelling public.


George Prudham: If the hon. member will withdraw his amendment I can assure him that our department, under the authority of this act, will co-operate with the Department of Transport with a view to preventing such occurrences in so far as that is possible.


Agar Rodney Adamson: If I have that assurance from the minister, my point is made. There is no use persisting in an amendment which, if the government opposes it, will not carry. I did want to bring out the point most seriously that there must be some method by which baggage going on board an aircraft could be examined by the officers of an air line before the aircraft became airborne. I think it is only fair to the travelling public, and I rest my case not only on the Guay crime but the seven others which have taken place since then in other parts of the world.


William Alfred Robinson: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


George Clyde Nowlan: Clause 11 of the bill is new, and is one against which I want to register a protest. It says in effect that a police

Explosives Act
officer or a peace officer may arrest anyone committing an offence under this act, which may or may not be all right. I doubt if it is. It goes on to say that a man may be arrested if the officer reasonably suspects him. This leaves the door wide open to any police officer or any sort of constable to make an arrest without a warrant.
I do not believe the provisions of this act, either as amended or as originally in the act, are of such grave importance that we should grant the right of arrest on suspicion without a warrant. It is true there is that right in the Criminal Code, but even in the Criminal Code the power is restricted to a police officer who finds a person committing an offence. In most cases the penalty under this act is only a fine of a few hundred dollars, so I believe we are opening the door still wider and giving more and more control to police officers, which is a violation of the concept upon which our whole system of justice is based.
The hon. member for York West has been discussing one very heinous type of offence. While the hon. member was speaking I was rather intrigued to recall an incident a friend told me about yesterday. He suffered a terrible catastrophe while he was in an aircraft. My friend is a sober, righteous and Godfearing individual. He was flying at 25,000 feet and had a bottle of whiskey in his club bag upon which the seal had not been broken, and it exploded. I am told that will happen if the seal has not been broken. There are many around here who could have obviated that danger.
I see that the act defines "explosive" as gunpowder, blasting powder, and then goes .on to say-
. . . and every other substance made, manufactured or used with a view to produce a violent effect . . .
I am not sure but what a bottle of whisky comes within that definition. I am sure no one in this house would ever be involved in a catastrophe of that nature, but if that should happen to someone are we going to arrest him without a warrant merely because he happened to lose a bottle of whisky while flying at 25,000 feet?
I am using that illustration facetiously, but it is an example of the danger of giving the power of arrest without a warrant for offences which are really summary and which are dealt with by the imposition of fines. The offences, at the most, are quasi-criminal, and in almost every case would be the result of ignorance of the regulations or technical offences. Of course a tourist might come here and carry ammunition without a permit, or something of that kind; but I do suggest [Mr. Nowlan.l
that in the ordinary case, perhaps that of a farmer who violates the act because he holds too much in the way of explosives, there is no danger of his running away. A magistrate can get him any time he wishes.
Under our system one may lay an information before a magistrate. It may be a long procedure, and we have gone a long way in abrogating it, but I do not think we should do so for minor technical offences.


Mr.   Mdvor@: If a peace officer is convinced that someone is holding explosives, and that a danger is involved, what would happen if that peace officer had to go back to see a magistrate and get a warrant? The damage would be done before he got it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Despite what the hon.
member for Fort William has said, I wish to support the protest made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. This is the same argument we had some days ago when we were discussing one of the clauses in the bill amending the Criminal Code. Perhaps we will be discussing it again tomorrow.
It does seem to me we have to be extremely careful before we agree to a provision of this kind that departs from the time-honoured principles of justice that have meant so much in this country. I have read with interest not only the section that it is proposed to enact by this clause, but also the explanatory note on the righthand page; and I suggest they do not say the same thing. If the wording of the clause went no farther than the explanatory note, it might not be so objectionable. I shall read both of them. The explanatory note says:
This amendment authorizes peace officers to arrest without warrant a person whom they find committing or whom they reasonably suspect is committing an offence against the act.
We find in this explanatory note a provision for either one thing or another, but both are in the present. It seems to me there would be a case for a clause of that kind. However, the wording of the clause itself is as follows:
Any peace officer may without warrant arrest any person whom he finds committing or whom he on reasonable ground suspects of having committed an offence against this act.
I can visualize a case where a peace officer might find someone in the act of committing this offence, and that might have been what was in the mind of the hon. member for Fort William. But if the event has taken place in the past, and a peace officer merely suspects that a certain person has been guilty of it, why should we not stick to the principle that the peace officer must obtain a warrant before making an arrest? I have had to say

on many occasions in the house that I am not a lawyer, and that I must look at these things from the point of view of a layman. But I am interested in the principles of justice and freedom, and I do not like to see departures of this kind.
The chances of having an amendment made, if it is moved from this side of the house, are not the best. I would suggest to the minister that he consider having one of his colleagues move an amendment to delete from clause 11 certain words appearing in lines 43 and 44. I suggest the deletion of the words, "or whom he on reasonable ground suspects of having committed". If those words were taken out the clause would then read:
Any peace officer may without warrant arrest any person whom he finds committing an offence against this act.
I would ask the minister to discuss this with his colleagues; and no colleague would be better qualified than the one sitting to his left, the Minister of Justice.


George Prudham: This amendment is based upon experience in administering the act. For various reasons we feel it is necessary, in the interests of protecting the public. In some cases peace officers in the provinces administer the act for us. In isolated communities in the far north we might have special inspectors or peace officers appointed, who would have to travel considerable distances to lay a charge or obtain a warrant for the arrest of a person who is endangering the safety of the public.
The officers of this department have no desire to push anyone around; but I suggest when you are dealing with explosives you cannot afford delay, especially where the safety of the public is endangered. I can think of many instances where the provisions of this clause would be necessary to protect the public.
There comes to mind an instance during the war when the Americans were constructing the Alaska highway. At that time a construction company stored a large quantity of dynamite in a shack in the centre of Dawson Creek. Fire broke out, and the resulting explosion killed several people and practically wiped out the town. If an inspector had been on the job and had seen that condition he would have had to act quickly to prevent disaster. If he had found it necessary to go to the seat of government at Pouce Coupe to obtain a warrant, he perhaps would not have been able to act quickly enough.
This is just hypothetical, but many other situations could develop where, in the interests of public safety, a peace officer should
Explosives Act
have the power to arrest without warrant. I am told that we have had at least one case in Ontario where a provincial officer would not make an arrest because he doubted his authority. In that instance the person who was breaking one of the regulations was able to make his escape, and it was not possible to apprehend him.
The suggested clause in the bill is based upon experience; and in view of the hazards which might develop in connection with the transportation or use or storage of high explosives, we think it is quite reasonable.


George Clyde Nowlan: With all respect to the minister, let me say that I do not think he has made a case to meet the contentions of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre and myself. My hon. friend stressed the fact, as I did, that the minister might ask for the power to arrest without a warrant when a person is found committing an offence. However, I did think the case to which the minister referred, in connection with the building of the Alaska highway, was a little farfetched, because they did not have an inspector on the job. It was never inspected; therefore there was no question of an arrest being made. If there had been inspection it would not have happened. If there had been an inspector who had the right to arrest without a warrant, he could have made the arrest and prevented the disaster. Once it happens, no further lives are being risked by the fact that you have not the right to arrest a man you suspect of having done something; and of course you can use the isolated example of the peace officer up near the north pole who may have to travel 500 miles.
It is really a sad picture, but I suspect that, generally, the peace officer acts after the offence has been committed and there has been an investigation. In these circumstances he could very easily take a warrant. And, much as I respect peace officers, and much as I regret a peace officer having to make a long trip, I think it is much better as a matter of principle that you have to lay an information and take out a warrant in respect of the offence committed, once it has been committed. It is better to do that than to accept the easy explanation, "Well, this will make it harder for the peace officer". After all, the police officers who join a city force expect to make some sacrifices; they are paid for it, and they are prepared to do it.
Really, I am surprised that the minister will not accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, because it is a glaring case, a matter such as this, where the amendment should be made as suggested and the past tense taken out, but, of course, leaving to police officers

Explosives Act
the right to make arrests if they find an offence actually in the course of being committed.


George Prudham: Let us go back to the case my hon. friend mentioned, where some saboteur might be trying to unlawfully ship explosives on an aircraft. If the law officers suspected that a certain parcel contained explosives and they opened it while the man was still there, it seems unreasonable that they should have to go and lay a charge and get a warrant and let the man escape.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is a continuing offence. You could arrest him right there.


Mr. Churchill:: I should like to support what has been said by hon. members on this side of the house. Surely what the minister is after in his act and regulations is to prevent accidents or damage from improper use or storage of explosives. It seems to me that the example he gave from Dawson Creek is really not applicable here. What purpose is there in arresting a man when what you want, or would have liked to do in that instance, was remove the explosives or properly store them. It seems to me the arrest is something that takes place after the damage has been done. It is much more useful to prevent the damage from the explosive. This section gives to a peace officer the power to make an arrest if he suspects someone of having committed an offence, but that is something that takes place after the offence has been committed, after the damage has been done. Surely the due process of law would be satisfactory without this special arrangement.
The suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to limit it just to allowing arrest without warrant when a person is in the act of committing an offence should be satisfactory. By that means you prevent any damage occurring, and that would be so in the case so ably presented by the hon. member for York West, where explosives might be in a parcel going on board an aeroplane. The power of arrest there would be very helpful, but much more helpful would be the discovery of the parcel that contained the explosive and its removal for the protection of the people on the aeroplane.


George Prudham: My officials tell me they have had several instances where people have tried to break into explosives plants. Usually, for reasons of safety, these plants are isolated from communities. Although the people who were trying to break in were seen, the officers were not able to make an arrest because they had to go back and lay a charge and take out a warrant before any action could be taken. The result was that those people escaped.

Occasionally the department gets word from an isolated place, the Northwest Territories, perhaps, that a certain individual has abandoned some explosives. They are unsafe for use and a menace to the public. Probably the individual has left the country or is on his way out; our officer might meet him, and without a warrant would be unable to arrest him.
This amendment is based on the practical experience that we have had, and we think in the interests of safety it is necessary to take that power.


Mr. Mclvor:: It says "reasonable grounds".


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am still not satisfied that the minister has made any case at all for departure from the time-honoured principle in connection with matters of this kind. 1 had hoped that he or his colleague the Minister of Justice would give serious consideration to the proposal I made a few minutes ago. Apparently that is not going to come from that side. This matter is of sufficient importance that we should know where the committee stands on it. I therefore move:
That clause 11 be amended by deleting from lines 43 and 44 the words "or whom he on reasonable ground suspects of having committed".
If that amendment were to carry the clause would then read:
Any peace officer may without warrant arrest any person whom he finds committing an offence against this act.
I believe that is as far as we should go. I do not like the suggestion that we are being asked to change what amounts to the basis of criminal law just to suit the convenience of peace officers. It seems that there is already in our criminal law too much of a desire to make things easier for the prosecution. I offer this amendment to clause 11.


George Prudham: This act is not designed for the convenience of police officers. It is designed to protect the safety of the public.
I believe that the safety of the public is of greater importance than the possible inconvenience of some individual who, in any event, will have recourse to the courts.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I want to say just one word on this. My amendment, which I withdrew, had nothing to do with arrest. My amendment was actually a protective amendment for the purpose of inspection. I must say that I find myself in agreement with the argument raised by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre and Winnipeg South Centre. If a man is breaking into an explosives factory he is committing an offence and can be

arrested. This amendment is an abridgement of the rights of the citizen which I do not think is justified in the circumstances.


Mr. Garson:: I do not want to participate in the discussion of the merits of the section unnecessarily, because it has been quite adequately covered by my colleague the hon. Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, but I wish that the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house who have spoken on the matter would elucidate a little bit more clearly what they referred to as the time-honoured principles that we are changing by this proposed amendment. For as I read not the new code, Bill No. 7, but the existing code, it says in section 646:
Any person-
Not a peace officer, mark you, but any person.
Any person may arrest without warrant any one who is found committing any of the offences mentioned in sections-
And then there are listed about two full pages of code sections defining a great variety of offences.


George Clyde Nowlan: Of specific offences.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes; one of which is attempt to damage by explosives. Then, if hon. members will look at section 648 of the Criminal Code they will see this:
Any peace officer may arrest, without warrant, any one whom he finds committing any criminal offence.
Next if hon. members will look at section 652 of the Criminal Code-and this is the law which my hon. friends of the opposition must have referred to as being time-honoured for it has been in the Criminal Code for a long time. I shall read the relevant portions of this section:
Any peace officer may, without a warrant, take into custody-
Which is the same thing as arrest.
-any person whom he . . . has good cause to suspect of having committed or being about to commit, any indictable offence . . .
Surely the only distinction in principle there can be in the proposed clause 11 of Bill 183 is that this clause 11 may be applicable to some offences which it is true may not be indictable. But although they may not be indictable offences they are offences dealing with a very dangerous subject matter, namely, explosives. Just to take the case cited in the excellent statement of the hon. member for York West. Let us suppose that regulations are made, making it an offence for any person to put explosives upon an aeroplane and, we will say, that a Mr. Guay of the future puts explosives upon an aeroplane; and that no
Explosives Act
person knows that it was he who put them there or for what purpose they were put there.
At that stage of the investigation what he had done would perhaps only be an offence under the Explosives Act or some other act, or regulations passed thereunder. It is only after the crown has been able to disclose evidence to establish a conspiracy or other criminal motive, to show, for example, that the explosives were so placed for the purpose of killing one particular person, that what has been done appears to be an indictable offence. My hon. friends in furtherance of these time-honoured principles upon which they lay such great stress are in effect arguing in relation to such a set of facts that if the people who were investigating the presence of the explosives upon an aeroplane saw Mr. Guay just outside the aeroplane and had reasonable grounds to suspect that he was the man who put the explosives on the aeroplane they would have to go off and get a warrant before they could arrest him, and by the time they got back of course Mr. Guay would be gone, probably for good.


George Clyde Nowlan: Does that increase the public danger in any way?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think it would. This hypothetical Mr. Guay might conceivably be guilty of one of the most dastardly crimes. We have to remember in these matters that the law-respecting and law-abiding members of the public who mind their own business and obey the laws are entitled to a little consideration too. In actual practice sections of this character are not invoked by a responsible peace officer unless there are some reasonable grounds-indeed he must have reasonable grounds-to suspect that the person has been guilty of an offence.
It would seem to me in this connection that we must bear in mind that the materials with which this legislation deals are very dangerous indeed; also that in most of these cases at that particular stage of the investigation the peace officers in charge cannot perhaps establish that the act in question is criminal in nature to the point of being indictable. It may have been committed in innocent ignorance of the law. Or it may be an offence under the Explosives Act. On the other hand, the explosives may have been put in place for a dastardly purpose. At that stage, if the peace officers have not the power to arrest under such a set of facts, they must simply stand there stupidly and let the criminal get away. If that happened, then I suppose my hon. friends of the opposition would get up and criticize the administration of justice.

Patent Act


Agar Rodney Adamson: Surely you have power under the act as it now stands to arrest?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Let us take the hypothetical case of a man suspected of placing explosives on an aeroplane.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. Section 652 of the existing Criminal Code, not the new code, Bill 7,- there is no change of substance contemplated, and this is one of the sections which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I have been discussing and will be discussing tomorrow-says:
Any peace officer may, without a warrant, take into custody any person . . . whom he has good cause to suspect of having committed or being about to commit, any indictable offence.
My point is that the sets of facts that come up in real life are not tailored to fit a textbook definition. At that stage of the investigation maybe no person knows whether this act in question was a dastardly crime or a less serious offence or just an innocent act. In such circumstances surely it is not unreasonable to vest some kind of discretion in the peace officer as to whether he will walk out of where the explosives are and say to the suspect: "Look, Mr. Guay, there is no need for commotion about this, but I wish you would come along with me. We will have a talk with the crown prosecutor to discuss this matter further, to clarify just what these facts are."
The hon. member for York West says that he is strongly in support of this other provision but I say to him that I do not see how he could make his suggested provision work in most cases if he supports this other provision.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 17; nays, 54.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 177, to amend the Patent Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that this bill has none of the dynamic or tragic possibilities of the measure which has just been passed. In fact it is a very dull one. There really is not much to be said about it other than what I said on first reading. If I may

be permitted to do so I shall repeat the words I used on that occasion, which may be found in Hansard for February 2 at page 1678:
Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this bill is to authorize certain increases in statutory fees provided under the Patent Act, in accordance with the policy of the government to make sure that services of this character are paid for by those to whom they are rendered, and not by the taxpayers generally.
I soon discovered, indeed the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) drew my attention to the fact shortly after I came into my present office, that there has been a deficit for some time in the operations of the patent office, and it was felt that it would not be reasonable to allow it to continue. The deficit for the last fiscal year was about $133,000, and this seems an unreasonable sum for the taxpayers to contribute to an office which, when all is said and done, exists primarily to confer upon certain individuals and corporations exclusive privileges.
I felt, sir, that whatever some hon. members opposite might feel about whether the persons who put stamps on cheques, for which they obtained no service from the government, ought to pay for the carriage of letters, posted by others who did not pay the full cost, there could be no difference of view about the notion that the person who wishes to get a patent for an invention should pay the reasonable cost of the services in that connection.
There is another reason which I believe will appeal to a good many Canadians as to why this should be so. I am informed that some 90 per cent of the patents granted by the Canadian patent office are granted to non-Canadians, who are thereby given an exclusive privilege in this country. Whatever may or may not be thought about the merits of these exclusive privileges or monopolies they thereby acquire, I believe everyone would feel that the patentees or applicants ought to pay the costs which the government of this country incurs in giving them that privilege.
On the other hand, I do not believe it would be reasonable to try to turn the patent office into a profit-making operation; and the scale of fees recommended in this bill, plus something I am going to mention in a moment, is calculated by the officers of the department to put the operation of the office on a paying basis and provide a small margin for the expansion of costs, some of which have gone up as a result of the increases in salaries made effective last December, and others of which I hope will go up, because the patent office is trying to recruit the staff it badly needs in order to deal with its work a little more rapidly.

There has been a great scarcity of the kind of people required to do patent examinations, but the officers of the department are hopeful that some good recruits will now be forthcoming and that the work of the office may be made more efficient, though at a somewhat higher cost. That higher cost, it is felt, should be covered by the fees.
Now, sir, in order not to incur what I thought was the unreasonable criticism made of my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote), and in order to make as sure as I can that there will be no postcards in this measure, I should like to point out that under the statute certain powers are conferred, and I emphasize this, by parliament upon the governor in council to fix certain other fees. It is the intention of the governor in council, when this measure becomes law, to increase one or two of these other fees as well. I would prefer, unless hon. members wish me to do it now, to give precise examples in committee. There is also the Patent Record published by the office which is not now being paid for by subscription. It is intended also to increase the subscription for the Record and to increase the price charged for printed patents.
The measure, as hon. members will note, if passed will come into force on April 1. I am no expert on this matter, but representations have been made to the effect that certain of the steps taken under this law in the filing of documents, and that sort of thing, are valid only if full fees are paid at the time. It was felt that perhaps the interval of time between the passing of the act and the time it would come into force might not be sufficient to allow every possible applicant a reasonable opportunity to be informed of the change in rates. That is why clause 2 was put into the bill. It provides that if the old scale of fees are paid, the step will be valid, provided the additional fee is subsequently paid within a reasonable period of time.
Again, sir, and in order to make as complete a disclosure as possible to the house of the intentions of the government with respect to the Patent Act, I might say now that it is the intention of the government, if the necessary legislation can be drafted in time, to introduce another measure at this session which will affect the Patent Act and which will have to do with the codification and clarification of the patent rights of public servants, which are now governed by four or five different statutes which are not in every respect consistent with one another,
Patent Act
but this proposed measure will in no respect whatsoever change the law with respect to patents themselves.
It has also been represented to the government, both by officials having to do with the matter and by other interested persons outside, that there are other desirable amendments which should be made to this legislation. No amendment is made except one to increase the fees, and the reason for that is that it seemed to me-and in this I have the approbation of my colleagues-that the Patent Act and certain other closely related statutes were so important to the economy of the country that they should be given careful and thorough revision of a character which a layman like myself could certainly not be expected to undertake, even if he had the time to do it.
I have therefore been authorized to state today, sir, that it is the intention of the government within the next few months to establish a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act into the working of the Patent Act, the Copyright Act, the industrial design act, and other related legislation. I am not attempting to give any specific terms of reference, but merely to indicate that the general scope of the inquiry which is being undertaken is with a view to ensuring that adequate stimulus is being given to inventive and creative talent in Canada; to see that at the same time the public interest is being protected from undue exploitation of property in inventions and ideas; and to suggest amendments to the legislation which might be considered desirable to make the law more effective for these ends.
I am also pleased to be able to say that the chief justice of Nova Scotia, Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley who is well known to many hon. members here, has consented to preside over the inquiry. I am sure hon. members will feel that no better evidence could be given that it will be in competent hands.
If I might crave your indulgence for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I recognize that although this announcement has relation to the act being amended, it has no direct relation to this bill. However, I feel that it would be helpful to me as the responsible minister, to the officials who will have to assist in the drafting of the terms of reference, and to the inquiry which is subsequently set up, if you would permit any hon. member who wishes to do so to make, quite briefly, any suggestions he wishes to make as to the scope or nature of that inquiry. The purpose is to make the legislation-about which I doubt if there
199S

Patent Act
is any strong partisan division in the house- as effective as possible for its purpose. I would welcome, as I know my colleagues and I am sure everyone would, all the assistance that all hon. members on either side of the house can give in this matter.
I repeat that the sole purpose of the bill is to put the patent office on a paying basis.
I doubt whether there will be any difference of view about the desirability of doing that.
I do not think any hon. member would seriously argue that this particular amendment to the Patent Act should be postponed until the inquiry had been held. That is the reason this bill is being offered at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has indicated that perhaps hon. members would like to make suggestions as to the inquiry which he will have established at a later date. Of course this procedure would be out of order. What we have before us now is a bill to amend the Patent Act only in a few particulars. The principle of the bill is what must be discussed on second reading, and in this case the principle is the desirability of increasing the tariff of fees. If hon. members agree with the suggestion the minister has made and if that is the wish of the house, all right. I shall leave it up to them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Mr. Speaker:: If they do not agree to accede to the minister's suggestion that at this stage they give their own views on the proposed inquiry, I will have to ask that the discussion on second reading be relevant to the principle, as is provided for by the rules.


Edmund Davie Fulton: To deal first with the point you have just mentioned, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that I should say this. We welcome the spirit in which the minister has made his suggestion. We on this side of the house do not like to turn down opportunities for discussion. But, having regard to the circumstances under which the invitation has been extended it seems to me that we are really not in a position to take advantage of it because no one of us had any idea that this subject would be raised. Certainly, speaking for myself alone-but I imagine that there are quite a number of other hon. members who are in the same position, probably the majority of them-I have not had any opportunity to marshal any thoughts on the subject.
I should therefore like to make this counter-suggestion to the minister. I hardly imagine that there is any great urgency, in the usual sense of the word, with regard to the proposed inquiry. I appreciate that the government, having decided to embark upon
[Mr. PickersglU.l
this inquiry, would like to get ahead with it as soon as possible, but there is no urgency in the sense that the affairs of the nation are really going to suffer if it does not get under way immediately. I would therefore suggest that possibly a more logical way to deal with the matter would be to wait until the minister's estimates are reached, at which time there would be the fullest opportunity for discussion of the matter and for the making of suggestions as to the terms of reference of the inquiry and so on. I think that would be the better way to deal with the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. member's suggestion is a most happy and sensible one. I am rather sorry that I was not bright enough to think of it myself. I would certainly be very happy to agree with it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thank the minister for accepting the suggestion. I have just one other comment to make. The bill itself-I am now dealing with the bill, not with the other subject-is relatively simple and certainly, at the outset, appeared to be completely non-controversial. I had some doubts on that score when the minister, I thought, was in danger of both obscuring the clarity of the bill and destroying its non-controversial aspect when he appeared to be trying to drag into it stamps on cheques, whose relationship to the bill I was not able to appreciate although the motive behind the minister's method was more obvious. However, we shall not let that spoil the discussion. Being as simple as it is in purpose and in scope, I think the bill really does not require any extended remarks at this stage, although I shall have some questions to ask the minister when we go into committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree
with the result of this discussion so far as the minister's announcement about the inquiry is concerned, and I shall concur in the suggestion that has now been made. As a matter of fact, I have in my files upstairs a few letters which may now be sent to the minister as suggestions rather than bringing them here to the floor of the house. What is good about the announcement made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) today is that it gives to the public advance notice that such an inquiry is to be made, and any people who are interested in the Patent Act, the Copyright Act or the Industrial Design and Union Label Act will now be in a position to forward their suggestions either to the Secretary of State or to members of parliament so they may transmit them to the Secretary of State.

I am sure we welcome the announcement that this inquiry is to be set up. We agree with the Secretary of State that it is in good hands if Mr. Ilsley is to be chairman of the inquiry. As the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has said, the bill at first looked to us like an uncontroversial one, and like one so simple that the sponsor probably would not bother getting to his feet on second reading. I wondered for a while whether the Secretary of State wanted to get into another argument, but I gather that is not his real purpose. I congratulate him on having learned something this week, namely on having learned that it is a good idea for the government to disclose its hand.
I congratulate him on assuring us that no postcards are going to turn up in the discussion of this matter, and for having told us what other steps the government plans to take if this measure goes through.
It seems to be a reasonable proposition that those who wish this service should be required to pay for it. I believe we took that position with respect to something else the other day, namely newspapers and periodicals. I had better watch out, Mr. Speaker, or I shall be as out of order as was the Secretary of State. However, we welcome the frankness of the minister today and see no reason why the bill should not be given second reading.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker,
I want to add, to the words of those who have already spoken, my word of thanks to the Secretary of State for giving us notice of the revision that is in prospect. That notice undoubtedly gives to members of the house and to many outside the house the opportunity to dig down into their experience and knowledge and undoubtedly to come up with some concrete suggestions.
As to the amending bill that is before the house, I heartily agree with it and the principle behind it, namely that those who use the service-after all, they are given certain privileges-are the ones who should be made to pay for those privileges. In passing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) made mention of postcards, but I am glad that at least here we have no second-class patents with which to contend.


Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: I welcome, Mr. Speaker, the many announcements made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) today. We heard some announcements regarding monetary changes in the bill, but there were also some very good changes to be made suggested in the Patent Act concerning inventions by public servants. This
Patent Act
reform has been long overdue because in the past public servants have not been very well rewarded for their inventive genius. I welcomed the increased fees which will assist the work of our patent system in Canada.
I know it is an easy thing for the Secretary of State to stand in his place and say that those who want the privilege should pay for it. I want to tell the members of the house that it is not always a privilege to get a patent. Very few of the people who obtain a patent make anything out of it. What the Patent Act does do, and what it was designed for, is to confer a privilege on the public to help inventors in this and other countries to develop in their respective scientific fields. The patent is granted to a person because he has spent some time inventing something that was not known before. He gives it to the public after having benefited for seventeen years by the privilege, as some might call it, of being the exclusive owner of the right to use the invention. As I said before, the patentee very seldom benefits from the patent.
Patentees are willing to pay the higher fees.
I have no objection to the fees mentioned in the schedule attached to this bill, although I believe they have reached the limit because they are as high as those charged in the United States. The patentee or inventor does expect, however, to get good service. The thing which has prevented the patent office in this country from giving the same service as patent offices in other countries is the fact that we have not been able to recruit the necessary assistance to run the patent office. What we have is very good, and the improvements over the past seven or eight years have been excellent. I am glad the present Secretary of State is taking such an interest in the Patent Act. I hope he will remain Secretary of State for some time so that we may have a minister who knows the Patent Act.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of this bill is to offset the deficit which the patent office has shown for three years. With a revenue of about $600,000 in 1949, there was a surplus of $230,000. This year, with a revenue of about $777,000, we have a deficit of $133,000. While the increase in fees would have taken care of increased salaries and things of that sort, the thing which is really responsible for the deficit is the printing of patents. I believe this should be brought to the attention of the house. The printing of patents and the Patent Record cost about $400,000 a year. The revenue from the sale of the printed patent and the Patent Record
1S98

Patent Act
amounts to around $30,000. There is, therefore, a deficit from the operation of printing patents and the Patent Record of close to $370,000 a year. Were it not for this printing, the patent office would have a surplus of some $235,000 or $240,000 a year.
It might be of some benefit to hon. members if I traced the story of the printing of patents. I am hoping the Secretary of State will find some way whereby we can either cut the cost of printing these patents or else he will have to increase the price charged for them. As I recall it, the original report which was submitted by the commissioner of patents and his advisers in 1947 stated that printing would cost about $45,000 if done by the rotaprint method. Some further estimates were made later, and it was stated that printing would not cost more than $90,000. Since there was a surplus of $130,000 a year, it was thought the patent office would not lose any money. However, the cost has proved to be nothing like that, and has gone up from $230,000 in 1949 until today it is about $400,000. Some time ago I spoke to the Secretary of State and suggested to him that the price of these printed copies should be substantially increased. The printed copies now cost only 25 cents each. As I calculate the cost of printing, and I can only go by my figures, the cost of printing a patent is about $30. They are sold for 25 cents each.
As I have often said to the commissioner of patents, those who want printed copies will pay $1. Before printed copies were obtainable it usually cost in the neighbourhood of $4 for a typewritten copy of the patent, but those who needed them bought them. It is true that more printed copies are sold, but at a price of 25 cents, which I feel cannot be justified. I feel that the minimum charge should be 50 cents, and I would go as high as $1 for a printed copy such as is furnished by the Canadian patent office. I am a patent solicitor as well as a barrister, but my practice is mostly in patents and trade marks.
I know that when I want a copy of a patent I tell my secretary to get four because they are only 25 cents each. I only need one, but I put the others on the file and give them to people asking for them. If the printed patent cost $1, I would get one or two. I would even pay $2, because that is a very small amount to pay for a copy of a patent and the drawings exactly as they are supplied in the patent office. In the past, to avoid delays, attorneys had to make a search for the patent, and then make copies themselves.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with the purpose of this bill. Last year there

were about 16,000 applications for patents, and about 10,000 allowances, so if the fee were increased by $5 the extra revenue would amount to about $130,000. This would cover the deficit, along with other increases in salary. Hon. members of this house need not cry over the increase, because, of the 16,000 applications filed in Canada, about 12,000 were filed from the United States, 1,867 from England, and only in the neighbourhood of 1,173 from Canadian sources. Even some applications in the latter group were from subsidiaries of United States corporations. In effect, we are therefore taxing foreign corporations and foreign inventors. It will not be the Canadians who will suffer. I believe, however, for the present we have reached the limit in fees for filing applications and for allowances, when we consider the services rendered. I hope that, moved by his zest and zeal, ambition and courage, our new Secretary of State will, as a result of all the good things he has in mind, and the inquiry he wishes to conduct, bring about a better Patent Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the Secretary of State
speaks now he will close the debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I shall not speak long. I could not help rising to echo what was said by the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard). I, too, hope I will remain Secretary of State for some time.
But my main purpose in rising was, being a cautious man, to enter a caveat. I said I had hoped there were no postcards in this bill. I did not say there were none. I tried my best to think of everything even remotely related to the bill that the house might wish to know. But it is possible I may not have thought of everything. If so, I hope that my having said so in advance will reduce the enormity of the oversight.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Tariff of fees.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder if the Secretary of State would answer one or two questions. I believe he said that last year there was a deficit of $130,000. Is it intended that the increase in fees resulting from the increases provided in the schedule, together with other increases the minister contemplates, and which I understand he has power to make by regulation-or that the governor in council has power to make-will make good the whole of that deficit? Or is it expected that there will still be some to make good?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is estimated that it will produce in the next fiscal year about $184,000. The deficit would almost certainly be greater this year, and probably in the next year greater still.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can the Secretary of State say whether the deficit is due mainly to the feature mentioned by the hon. member for Ottawa East, that it is brought about by printing costs and things of that kind, or whether the shortage of revenue as compared with expense is created mainly by increases in salaries? In other words, is it due to actual operating costs, that is, costs of materials, printing and the like, or the 40-hour week or some similar arrangement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that I would really be able to give an answer that would satisfy even myself. As the hon. member for Ottawa East said a moment ago, it is a question whether it is essential to have a patent printed. If it is essential, then the nice question arises as to how to spread the overhead. The printing cost is so much; and I am pleased to be able to say that, from the best evidence I have been able to get thus far, the costs per unit are steadily decreasing. Some new types of processes are being introduced which have had the effect of reducing costs steadily.
I have no doubt however that the hon. member for Ottawa East, who is very much better informed about the details surrounding this kind of thing than I can profess to be-because he deals with them constantly -will know that the main part of the deficit, if one may so describe it, arises because it costs a lot more to print the copies than the sale of those copies brings in, even adding the sale of the Patent Record.
But in my view that is not very good economics; because if patents have to be printed anyway, then it could be argued in another way that everything brought in from the sale of them was pure gain, and that the printing is an essential part of the whole process. It is the kind of question about which very high-priced cost accountants quarrel, and therefore a layman like me, who is not an accountant of any sort, really has not an opinion that is worth giving to the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What I had in mind was that there are only certain of the tariff items being increased. I believe there are seven of them. If the increases are designed to avoid a deficit which would result from increased operating costs, then I am wondering why all items were not increased proportionately.
For instance here is one:
On filing an application or petition under sections 41, 47 or 67 or 68; for each patent mentioned therein, $10.
Patent Act
That is the same as the old fee; there is no increase. If costs and salaries have increased, while it may be true that the physical volume of work required to fill such an application has not increased, the cost of maintaining a staff and premises certainly has. I know that all costs in connection with the land registry office have increased, and therefore all fees were increased. I am wondering what the situation is here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The fees were increased in those cases where the number of transactions was considerable and where the revenue was in substantial amounts. There are some of these items in which the revenue is so inconsiderable that I imagine it would be a nice question as to whether reprinting the tariff of fees and producing a new document, with new amounts on it, would not cost more than it would be hoped to get out of it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But you have to print it anyway, do you not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The whole tariff, yes. But I presume-and here I must say I am on very dangerous ground because I am theorizing about something concerning which I have no direct knowledge. But I imagine these things have to be printed in many different places. If only a very few applications come in, it may be more inconvenient to change them than not. In any case the amount of revenue produced in those cases, so I am informed, has not been very considerable.


Ray Thomas: What increase in revenue does the minister expect this year from the increased fees? Incidentally, I noticed that the hon. member for Ottawa East took me to task for referring to the privilege granted to those who obtained patents. Possibly he did so quite properly, because I think I should have used the word "protection" instead of "privilege".


John Whitney Pickersgill: The word in the statute is "monopoly".
I think I gave the figure a moment ago to the hon. member for Kamloops, when I stated that it was estimated it would produce about $184,000 in the next fiscal year. This will not come into operation until April 1.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister feel disposed to give the committee the other changes that have been made by order in council, or by the Secretary of State on his own book?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are two items of the supplementary tariff which is established by order in council P.C. 2637 of June 10, 1948, under authority of section 75 (4) which empowers the commissioner of patents, with

Patent Act
the approval of the governor in council, to fix the fees of any proceeding not herein provided for.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those are the postcards.


John Whitney Pickersgill: These are the postcards. The intention is to recommend these latter two increases to the governor in council, as I said, after the bill is passed. As I said, if the bill is passed. The two items are: Completing application; the present tariff is $3; the new one will be $5. The estimated additional revenue is about $3,662. I perhaps should say, sir, that the $184,000 figure I gave included these changes to be made by regulation as well as those to be made by statute.
Supplementary disclosure; the present fee is-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what you are doing
now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think mine was not
supplementary but simultaneous. The present fee is $15. The new fee suggested is $20 and the additional revenue estimated- this is a very close estimate-is $395. If I had been doing it I think I would have made it $400. That illustrates the point I was making to the hon. member for Kamloops a few moments ago, that some of these things are just barely worth changing, not that I regard $400 as a very small sum.
Then, in addition to that, it is proposed to increase the price for printed copies of patents from 25 cents to 50 cents. Whether the governor in council will yield to the entreaties of the hon. member for Ottawa East and make it $1 I do not know. I should like to consider that a good deal before proposing it, because I did a little arithmetic when the hon. member was speaking. He said that he never bought one printed patent, he always bought four. Four at 25 cents each makes $1; four at 50 cents would make $2. If the price were $1 he might not even buy two. It is the kind of pricing policy that every merchant has to consider, and I will give it such consideration as I can. But I think I can assure the committee the result of my consideration will be that I shall still recommend to council that it be 50 cents. For individual copies of the patent office record the price is now 25 cents. The price for an individual copy will be 50 cents, and the annual subscription rate will be increased from $10 to $25. It is estimated that this increase in price will produce another $9,000. Of course that must depend a good deal on how many subscriptions there are.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A good many references
are being made to the printing of these documents. I believe they are printed in what is

known as the patent record printing office rather than over at the printing bureau. Can the Secretary of State say whether the same scale of wages applies to those working in the patent record printing office as to those working over at the printing bureau?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish, Mr. Chairman, that I had the same capacity for carrying in my head the encyclopaedic information that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You used to be in Winnipeg yourself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I used to be in Winnipeg and my memory was no better then than it is now. The printing bureau and the places where this printing is done, which after all is part of the printing bureau in the Canadian building, are under the jurisdiction of the queen's printer, for whose activities I am responsible in this house. I would not venture to say whether the wages paid in one place are the same as in the other, but I would think it very unlikely that they would not be. They have different processes. I presume there are different wages paid to people for different processes, but, honestly, I cannot answer the question, sir. However, I shall be glad to answer it when my estimates come up.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the Secretary of State told us already for how many years the patent office has shown a deficit?


John Whitney Pickersgill: My information is that there has been a deficit for the last three years; that is, prior to this year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then, to be strictly accurate in connection with the minister's statement on second reading, this proposal is not in accordance with the government's policy; it is a revision of government policy designed to put it on a paying basis, but I think it is quite a sound one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might make a brief comment on that. There was a very large deficit in the fiscal year-I had better get it right; it always helps-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The frankness over there today is most refreshing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. The year 1950-51 was the first year the printing was undertaken and the deficit was nearly a quarter of a million dollars, $244,000 and some odd. The next year it was only $79,000. I have the feeling that the printing was experimental the first year and it was very expensive. There was a hope that the process could be perfected and that the cost could be

reduced to the point where there would not be a deficit. But when it was found in 1952-53 that the deficit had gone up to $133,000 and that, in spite of technological improvements which had been made to reduce the rate of deficit, it was not being reduced and that the business was growing-and as someone said in another context, if I dare refer to it, you cannot lose money on every unit and make money on the whole operation-it was felt that the time had come to follow the policy of the government, sir.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall this bill, by leave, be read the third time now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting.



CANADIAN FORCES ACT


Hon. R. O. Campney (Associate Minister of National Defence) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 80, respecting the Canadian forces.
He said: This is a bill to amend a number a statutes which affect the members of the defence forces. Speaking to the resolution preceding this bill on December 10 last, as reported in Hansard at pages 795 to 799 inclusive, I reviewed generally the scope of the bill and endeavoured to cover briefly its salient points.
The clauses of the bill are not related to each other and the bill does not deal with a single specific subject, so that I would think that the usual practice of debating the principle of a bill on second reading is hardly applicable to this bill. I would suggest, therefore, that it might expedite consideration of the bill and be more helpful to hon. members if the bill could be given second reading now, after which we might proceed in committee to consider the several clauses which make up the bill.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: When the resolution preceding this bill was before the house I called attention to the unusual character of the bill, namely, its being one of those omnibus bills, embracing a great many amendments to five different acts of parliament. I do feel that it is unfortunate that the minister persists in introducing this omnibus type of bill, because it
Canadian Forces Act
makes it very difficult for many people to find the amendments to the various bills referred to. If the minister has found difficulty in defining the principle of this bill, I say that the principle of the bill is entirely unprincipled. With that I will have to agree with the suggestion that we deal with the bill clause by clause as we proceed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a matter for discussion and I think perhaps it should be raised under this clause. I have discussed this with the minister and some of his officials. Under the Defence Services Pension Act as it now stands certain classes of permanent service personnel who are compulsorily pensioned for economic reasons are subject to a one-third reduction in their pension if they were in the permanent force before June, 1944. Those who became members of the permanent force after June 1944 and are compulsorily retired after ten years may receive their full pensions without any reduction.
The actual result is as follows: A member of the permanent force who joined before June, 1944, and after being twelve years in the force, with say six years overseas, was then compulsorily retired for treasury board reasons with eighteen years' service, would be subject to a one-third reduction in pension. That would wipe out entirely any pension for the six years which he had served overseas. He gets two-thirds of his pension instead of the full pension. He gets a pension equivalent to twelve years' service instead of eighteen years'. That one-third reduction just wipes out the pension for the six years he was overseas.
But take a man who joined the services after June, 1944, and who had six, four or two years overseas-because there is no fixed minimum required for that category who joined the service after 1944. This man would have served two years overseas and ten years in the permanent force. He is then compulsorily retired but receives exactly the same pension as the man with twelve years in the force plus six years overseas.
That seems to me to be unfair and I think the minister himself will consider it is a bit unfair that a man with twelve years' permanent service before the war, with six years overseas, a total of eighteen years, should draw exactly the same pension after

Canadian Forces Act being compulsorily retired as the man with two years overseas service and ten years in the force after 1944.
I found from discussions with the judge advocate general that no such discrimination was made in connection with those pensioned under similar circumstances after world war I. Those who had been in the forces before world war I and were compulsorily retired for treasury board reasons were permitted to count their overseas service and were not subject to any one-third reduction.
I find from returns handed down that 145 men have been affected to date by this, and that the one-third reduction has cost those 145 men something over $246,000. I do not think that this country is so poor, nor do I think that the Department of National Defence is so hard up for money, that it must save by making a one-third reduction in the pensions of men who served overseas just because they happened to be members of the permanent force before June, 1944. If they had joined the forces after June, 1944, they would be subject to no such reduction.
The only reason I have been able to get from the judge advocate general and his officials for this discrimination is that the man who was in the forces before the war was able to retire at the end of the war and count his war service for pension purposes, whereas the man who was not in the permanent service before the war had to serve ten years after the war before he could count his overseas service for pension purposes.
I see no good reason why this distinction should be made. I see no good reason why a man who joined the permanent force before the war and served for eight, ten or twelve years should not be entitled to count his war service when compulsorily retired, through no fault of his own, just the same as the man who joined the permanent forces after the war was over. I can see no advantage that accrues to the man who was a member of the permanent force before the war.
I should like the minister to tell the committee whether or not he has considered this matter and has been given reasons which justify his believing that this arrangement is fair to the men who are affected, to the 145 men who have to date suffered a loss of $246,000 in their pensions. I may say that 139 of those 145 men were promoted during service in the field; they were not military college graduates but were promoted on the field of battle.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one general observation before dealing with the matter specifically raised by the


hon. member. The Defence Services Pension Act, like the Public Service Superannuation Act, is an act which came into being after a great deal of study by financial experts, by Mr. Finlayson, who was then superintendent of insurance, and by our own officials. In the act attempt has been made, as in the Public Service Superannuation Act, to take into consideration all factors relating to terms and conditions of service, and to produce an act taking cognizance of all relevant factors with a view to arriving at a fair and just act. I would also like to say that if the hon. member seeks to imply, and I do not believe he really does, that there has been wilful discrimination in regard to pension matters, I can assure him that such was not the case.
In regard to the class of cases to which he referred, it is my understanding that first of all the retirements in question came about by reason of the need to promote economy or efficiency in the services.
I want to emphasize that there is a responsibility in connection with any retirement before the normal period of service has been completed, and that retirements did take place with a view to promoting efficiency in the forces.
In the cases in question these officers, if I am correctly informed, had an opportunity to elect whether they would remain under the original parts I to IV of the Pension Act or come under part V. I will not attempt to go into the details of the differences between these parts as they are rather complicated and intricate; but as the hon. member knows, part V is the part under which all people now entering the services come, and it is provided in that part that if an officer retires before completing 20 years service he suffers a reduction of pension. If he retires before 20 years he suffers a deduction of one-third of his pension until he is 65. That is the general rule in cases under part V.
If the persons concerned retired under parts I to IV they would not be entitled to any pension at all. When they elected to come under part V they accepted the same rate as applies now to anyone entering the service under part V, and I think this is the root of the hon. member's criticism.
When the forces were being reorganized after world war II, I believe on the basis of a force about seven times greater than existed prior to world war II, there was a great need of senior officers highly qualified and experienced, and as an inducement to such men it was decided at that time that, notwithstanding the general provision of part V of the Pension Act, such persons taken into the services would receive full pension if they should retire after 10 years' service. This aided the

recruitment of the type of people we wanted, men in their middle thirties, who under normal circumstances could not have served 20 years before reaching the compulsory retirement age. As an inducement they were given a pension after 10 years without the one-third deduction until they should attain the age of 65 years. That was done for the benefit and welfare of the services.
It was not a question of R.M.C. graduates as against other officers because, as I pointed out, of the 145 who were retired under the reorganization, 6 were R.M.C. graduates and over that whole two-year period of reorganization I believe only 20 R.M.C. graduates were enrolled. It was a question of trying to reconstitute the forces on the best basis possible having regard to the qualification of the people available and of obtaining the officers required by the services.
I would also point out that those coming into the services under part V for purposes of qualifying for pension are not permitted to count their war service. Those gentlemen who were retired with the deduction from their pensions of one-third until they reached the age of 65 were permitted to count their war service as qualifying service; so, in order to understand this problem, you have to go a little deeper into the pension set-up than I fear the hon. member has done. You cannot simply say that one particular group has more service than another in the case of people retired on grounds of economy or efficiency, or that there are benefits under parts I to IV that are not available at present under part V, because there are also benefits under part V of the act which were not available under parts I to IV.
It is a question of balancing advantages and disadvantages, and the only object of the Defence Services Pension Act and' of the administrators of that act is to try and strike a fair balance. I believe that on the whole that has been done. I do not believe, from my own knowledge and from looking into the question which the hon. member has raised, and indeed from looking into the cases, that any individual has suffered hardship or been treated with unfairness. You can take any pension case and differentiate it from another, but basically I believe the administration of the act as it is now constituted has been fair. The officers to whom the hon. member referred had the right of election and, having weighed the advantages and disadvantages, what they really did was to elect to come under part V on the same basis as all others coming under that part.
Canadian Forces Act


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to continue that argument, but there is one point with reference to it which the minister missed. He referred to the 145 officers who were retired at that time and who are now under discussion. But they were compelled to retire. They had no alternative and I believe that distinction should be made. Whether the hon. member for York South intended to imply what the minister inferred from his remarks, I do not know, but I would just like to say that as a general rule good field officers do not make good parade ground officers if there is no war on. That may have had something to do with it.
I am going to draw to the attention of the minister some grievances which I hope he has not forgotten. I have mentioned them before in relation to this pension set-up as it affects officers. While the present bill does not attempt to amend the whole National Defence Act, it has reference to this particular matter. I am referring now to superannuation pension contribution made by officers who have died while in the services, and I want to remind the minister that when we were amending the original act a few years ago, and again since then, I brought to his attention a particular case which can be repeated over and over again. Evidently, not very much attention has been paid to it because there has been no reference to it at this time. In Canada today the services are a career. They can no longer be looked upon as an organization which you go into for war purposes, your main desire being then to get out. Today service in the armed forces is being made extremely attractive. Boys are being enticed in. A great many of them are going to make a career of it. They are going into the permanent forces, and those forces are going to be permanent for some time, in my judgment.
This superannuation scheme works in this way. An officer or any other member of the personnel may die within the service. The case I brought to the attention of the minister -and it can be repeated-had to do with Captain Edward Rowe. He served ten years in the army, with four or five years' combat service. He came back and was stationed in Ottawa. During the time of his service in Ottawa he had a heart attack and died in the service. When his contributions were returned to his widow, the income tax department deducted $600 income tax assessment from his contributions while he was in the service.
He intended to make the army a career. He left a widow and three children. Despite all of the veterans legislation there is no redress for that widow under any of it. She

Canadian Forces Act could not get a dependents' pension because the pension commission said his death did not arise out of, nor was it connected with, war service. In the second place, the widow could not get war veterans allowance because she was too young-she was not 55-and she was not completely incapacitated. Despite the fact that she lives in an isolated part of the country and has three small children to look after, she could not qualify. She gets nothing. No burial expenses were provided. In some cases the stone is provided to mark the last resting place of one who offered his life for his country. She herself had to purchase the stone.
In view of the fact that the services are a permanent organization, and in view of the fact that we can anticipate that kind of thing happening to many more service personnel, I think the time has come-indeed it is long past-when the defence department should have an understanding with the income tax people, at least, that the return of these contributions-this widow did not get any pension-should be free from income tax assessment. In the defence committee and in the house, both to the minister and to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), I suggested that some understanding should be arrived at between the two departments in order to correct that kind of thing. Nothing was done about it. It is not a new story at all to the minister or to the deputy minister because they were both present when I waved my arms on it before at some considerable length. I just hope that even at this late date something might be done to correct the situation. I am convinced that after a man has had ten years' service, with four or five years' combat service, the widow and those small children should have been provided with some kind of pension rather than having the contributions handed back for the income tax people to take a grab at and leave them with nothing.
I am also hoping that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe), in cases of that kind, will allow a little bit more latitude. As to a man who dies in the service of a heart attack and who has had combat service, I cannot understand how any medical doctor can make a decision that that man's death was not attributable to service. Certainly the stress and strain of war, in my judgment, had a great deal to do with it in the case to which I have referred. Nevertheless, the little widow and the three children are left to shift for themselves.
There are two other matters to which I should like to direct the minister's attention, and they are matters which are causing a great deal of anxiety to service personnel who leave the services. The first has to do


again with this service pension. A young man serves for two or three years in the army, the navy or the air force and then he wants to get out. While he was in the service he was contributing to the pension fund. When he is discharged, he goes back to his own home town-it might be Windsor, Hamilton or Sydney, Nova Scotia-and he finds himself out of the service and without a job. He cannot find employment. The first thing he wants is a return of his pension contributions. There is generally a delay of anything from two to three months; and I have known some instances in which the delay was much longer than that. I cannot understand why that delay should occur. Before that man is discharged, his documents are all assembled in his military district, they are all in one file and they come in to headquarters. I cannot understand why it takes two or three months for someone in the defence department to sit down, write out a sheet of paper saying that his account is closed and send him whatever money is coming to him. He is waiting for that money and he has not a job.
Again, in that connection, there is the question of unemployment credits that accrue to a member of the forces while he is in the service. Hundreds of service personnel are coming out of the service month by month and today they are not walking out to jobs. For the last year there has not been any work for them, at least in the part of the country from which I come. When they report to the unemployment insurance officer they are told, "We cannot do anything for you by way of paying unemployment insurance until we get your credits from Ottawa". Then you have the same old story again.
When the man is discharged from the services he has three departments to contend with in dealing with unemployment insurance. He has to contend with the defence department and the Department of Veterans Affairs and, in the final analysis, the thing has to go to the Department of Labour. I have had the thing worked out for me. I have been working on this thing for some considerable time and I have had all the mechanics of it drawn up in a blueprint. In handling it as a routine matter, as is done today, the results are unsatisfactory. Unemployment is becoming a most serious proposition for service personnel. Boys are coming back from Korea. Others are coming back from Europe. There is all the time a little line of service personnel coming out. It is a rather tough proposition to tell that to a young fellow who has just come back from Korea and who has been waiting for

a couple of weeks, probably, to draw unemployment insurance benefits and who has not a job. His pension contributions are tied up and he is waiting and waiting. It is no longer a routine matter. I know that with going from basket to basket, and everybody doing his little bit on it, day by day, it gets jammed up. But I believe that the defence department should allocate to some particular little group in the department the responsibility of handling that matter and that matter only, and that it should not be handled just as a sideline with a lot of other routine.
Then I think that in the Department of Veterans Affairs there should be some definite group or section with the obligation of taking care of that particular matter and clearing with the Department of Labour, just as expeditiously as possible, a release at least of the unemployment insurance. Then, of course, if it takes a little bit more time to straighten out the man's pay account, that is understandable.
This matter of establishing his unemployment insurance credits should not take very much time. It would appear to me, from the correspondence I have had and the delays there are from time to time, as though no one had been appointed in either department to do that particular job. I have been advised by the Department of National Defence that they have to go through three departments. I feel that the Department of Labour could handle the matter better once the service documents are cleared.
Those are the three grievances I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister. I hope he made notes of them and will not forget them. I hope he will do something about the case of the officer or member of the services who may die before he has served sufficient time to qualify for a pension. The present provision is not good enough. We are asking people to enter the service as a career, and it is not good enough to leave a man's family in the position of having to fight everybody in Canada in order to get a bite to eat, simply because something happened to him, in ten, twelve or fifteen years. It boils down to that now. I believe something should be done about it. I hope the minister will think a.bout it. There are a lot of other small things with which we can deal as we go through the bill.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I well remember the first case mentioned by the hon. member. He brought it up last year, and upon making inquiries I found that under our act his estate was paid the maximum amount it could be paid. The real question is one of
Canadian Forces Act
income tax, about which I would not volunteer an opinion. I can tell the hon. member that this type of case is again under review with the income tax people.
On the second point, having to do with the speedy return to a soldier who is demobilized of his contributions to the defence services pension fund, I agree that in the past there has been considerable delay, more delay than should be the case. I can assure the hon. member the matter has been given very serious study. We hope to make arrangements shortly which will make it possible to deal with these cases much more speedily.
With regard to the last matter the hon. member mentioned, I had not heard about it until the hon. member made his observation.
I did not know of any delay on our part in respect of unemployment insurance contributions. I shall look into that.


Clarence Gillis: The roadblock may not be in the Department of National Defence, but may be in the other two departments.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I want to come back to two statements made by the minister. In the first place, he says there is no discrimination. I want him to remember this. It is only those who were in the permanent forces prior to June, 1944, whose pensions are subject to that one-third reduction. If they joined the forces after June, 1944, and are compulsorily retired after they have served ten years, they are not subject to that one-third reduction; at least that is the information I was given at headquarters.
Then, the minister claims that these men were given a choice of retiring under part IV or part V. These men were compulsorily retired, and their choice was either to retire or to revert to the rank which they held before the war and continue in the service at that rank. They had either to retire or to forgo the rank to which they had been promoted during the war. The fact remains that there is this difference. A man who was in the forces before the war requires eighteen years in the service to receive the same pension as a man who joined the forces after June, 1944, who serves twelve years. There is a difference of six years between the two men.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The hon. member disagrees with me, Mr. Chairman, in my statement that, as of now, people coming into the service and retiring with less than 20 years' service get a one-third reduction on their pension until they are 65 years of age. This is so, and has been so according to

Canadian Forces Act
my information since December 31, 1948. In the intervening period between June 1, 1944, and December 31, 1948, a period when we were seeking senior officers because of the rebuilding of the permanent forces, what the hon. member said would be true. Since December 31, 1948, all those who entered the service are in the position that I stated, namely, that if they retire with less than 20 years' service their pension is reduced by one-third until they are 65 years of age.
Dealing with the question of the right of election to revert to a different rank or be compulsorily retired, each case has to stand on its own merits. I do not think anyone could make a general statement covering all cases.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Service.
George Randolph Pearkes: This clause refers to certain officer personnel who were serving on a fulltime basis with the reserve forces and were then taken into the regular forces. It enables them to count the time spent in the reserve forces for pension purposes; that is my understanding of the clause. I should like to ask, when will this provision come into effect? Will officers who have in the past been serving with reserve forces and who are now with the active forces be allowed the time they have already put into the reserve army? Will this apply to any personnel who may have left the service by now, and whose pension would be increased if they were allowed to count the time which they had spent with the reserve forces under the conditions set out in the explanatory note?


Ralph Osborne Campney: This section, Mr. Chairman, has a very limited application. As a matter of fact, it is not a general provision. It is being introduced to take care of the cases of 17 air force officers who are now in the regular service, and who had been doing full-time duty with the reserve. The provision contained in the act, and with which they must comply, is that they must have served at regular rates of pay in the reserve. These 17 men met all the qualifying conditions of service, but for some reason or other their pay was slightly under the regular pay so they would be ruled out unless a remedial amendment such as this were made.
In order to obviate making amendments to meet all these special conditions, the amendment seeks also to provide that conditions of service, rates of pay and so on may be regulated and dealt with by the governor in council.


George Randolph Pearkes: The minister has not
answered my question. I know about these air force officers, but in order to take advantage of this section must the officer in question be actually serving at this time?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As of the date of assent to this bill.


Mr. Harkness:: Would the minister tell us how many officers are presently affected or will be affected by the passage of this bill, and to what extent it is retroactive?


Ralph Osborne Campney: It is my information that it will not be retroactive, and that it will now affect only 17 Royal Canadian Air Force cases.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It does not affect any army cases at all?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that it does not.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Regulations.
George Randolph Pearkes: Would the minister explain subparagraph (b)?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As the situation stands at the present time, widows entitled to pensions must within four years pay full succession duties on the capitalized value of such pensions payable either to them or to their children. In practice this has obviously worked considerable hardship and has placed many widows and children in straitened circumstances, owing to the fact that they have had to anticipate getting the pension and in the meantime pay succession duties on it.
This clause seeks to give relief to such people by putting widows and children in practically the same position as they would be under the Public Service Superannuation Act. As I understand it, this would mean that the maximum amount of succession duties which could be paid from the pension fund would be the proportion that the value of the pension might bear to the remainder of the estate, and it would only be recovered from the widow or children, over such period of time as the pensioner might elect.
This clause if enacted would give relief to many widows and families who have experienced considerable hardship in having to-anticipate their pensions by paying succession duties in advance.


George Randolph Pearkes: I know there have been a great many cases where widows have suffered very severe hardship. Many have felt that these pensions, to which their husbands had contributed, should never be charged succession duties at all. While this measure

will bring a certain amount of relief, I am sorry the minister has not seen fit to go to the extent of removing these from succession duties. Will any rate of interest be charged on the amounts which are not paid?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I cannot give a categorical answer to that question, because it is settled from time to time in the Department of Finance. We do not have control over it.


Clarence Gillis: I agree with the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich that, while this is a step in the right direction, it does not go far enough. I agree that the charge of succession duties against the pensions of service personnel is something that should be reconsidered, particularly in respect of the capitalized value of the pension. Could the minister tell us the capitalized value of the pension of a sergeant who has been in the service for 20 years? Could he give us some idea of what the succession duties would amount to?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am afraid there are too many imponderables involved to give a categorical answer. It would depend upon the life expectancy of the widow and of the children, the value of the estate over and above the pension and other differentials existing between people who might even be of the same rank, but have different rates of pay because of trade qualifications and so on.


Clarence Gillis: When the Department of National Defence agreed to this kind of assessment against a pensioner, it must have worked it out on some basis. Surely there is some actuarial basis for it. Could not the minister give an average case?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I could set up a typical case, have it worked out, and give my hon. friend the results-taking certain facts as basic. If he wishes, I would be glad to have that done and give it to him.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you, sir.


George Randolph Pearkes: This regulation was brought in comparatively recently. It has not been in existence ever since the pensions scheme has been in vogue. There was a time, I believe, when pensions, to which personnel throughout their service had made contributions, were not charged succession duties; is that not correct?


Ralph Osborne Campney: If it is, I am not aware of it. However, I cannot say that it was not so in the past.


George Randolph Pearkes: Perhaps the minister would look into it and satisfy himself as to why this was done.
Canadian Forces Act


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the purpose of subsection 2? Is it merely to ensure that the same service will not be counted twice for a pension under different parts of the act? If not, what is the purpose?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The hon. member's understanding is correct.


Mr. While (Hastings-Frontenac):: When the minister refers to succession duties under subparagraph (b), would they apply to succession duties payable to a province in which such duties are collected?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-
Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not understand the meaning of the words in line 30, "other than the forces". The clause contains these words: -any continuous period of full-time service of six months or more in the naval, army or air forces of Her Majesty raised in Canada other than the forces-
And so on. What does this mean?


Ralph Osborne Campney: "Forces", under the interpretation section of the act, means regular forces.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then this refers to some sort of continuous service in the reserve forces?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is so.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Widow's pension to be resumed.
Mr. MacLean:: Subsection (la) provides that the pension of a widow who subsequently remarries shall be reinstituted after the death of her second husband. What is the position if the second husband is in receipt of disability pension? The widow in those circumstances would receive pension after the death of her second husband, on account of his war service. Would this not mean that the pension receivable on account of her first husband would be reinstituted, and in that event she would be receiving both pensions? That is how it would appear.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Under the circumstances outlined by the hon. member she might conceivably under this clause receive two pensions, one from disability, and the other the earned pension of her husband. This clause seeks merely to correct a situation where a widow has remarried and her second husband has died. She could not as the act stands resume her service pension under such circumstances. This clause would make it possible for her to do so.

Canadian Forces Act


George Randolph Pearkes: What happens if her second husband is a serviceman? Will she be entitled to two pensions, then?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The hon. member raises a question that might be looked into. I cannot answer it now categorically.


George Randolph Pearkes: This is rather serious. I am not joking. I am referring to the case where a widow of two service personnel is entitled to a pension. She is twice a widow. According to my reading of this act she would be entitled to two pensions, one for each of her former husbands.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Perhaps we will not finish this bill by six o'clock. I suggest that this section stand, as I would like to look into the observations of the hon. member.
Clause stands.
Clauses 6 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 10-Definition of "persons accompanying Canadian forces".


Mr. Mitchell (London):: I should like to point out one fact which arises as a result of this new section, namely, that wives now become in fact service personnel and are subject to the provisions of the National Defence Act. By their very nature, and for very good reasons, the provisions of this act provide more severe penalties than are provided for comparable offences in ordinary civil life, and in a good many cases constitute as offences acts which are not offences in our normal civil life. One example which I might point out is under section 74 where a widow or other dependent living in accommodation which is provided, as is now the case on many stations, might refuse the lawful order of the commander of the area to leave the accommodation and thereby be subject to a term of imprisonment for life or to less punishment. The mere fact that there is a two-year limit indicates the seriousness of the punishment which she might suffer.
The second point on which I should like some information from the minister is one which raises the whole question of the position in which not only service personnel themselves but their dependents will find themselves with relation to the law of countries in which they happen to be stationed, and I have no doubt that there are different situations in different countries. Perhaps they might find themselves in one position in France. It might be quite different in Germany. What are the provisions for dealing with service personnel and their dependents by the civil and criminal courts in those countries? Those who served throughout the last war will recall that in the United Kingdom many offences were 
dealt with by the civil authority, and some were dealt with by military authority. However, that was not the case in Italy and Germany nor, so far as I am aware, in France. Will the minister explain what the position will be with respect to those various countries?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Perhaps it would be helpful to hon. members if I did make a short statement on the status of Canadian forces serving abroad. Let me first deal with Germany. The Canadian forces serving in Germany, their dependents and other civilians in the services of or attached to them, have, by the law of the allied high commission, the same privileges as the occupation forces of the United Kingdom, the United States and France. This being so, they are not subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the German courts.
When the arrangements come into effect whereby West Germany will regain almost complete sovereignty, the status of Canadian personnel will undergo a change. The German courts will then have jurisdiction in criminal matters, but only in cases where Canadian military tribunals have not by the law of Canada been given jurisdiction.
As regards France, Belgium and the United States, the NATO status of forces agreement now applies to our forces in these three countries. Under that agreement Canada has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members and civilian employees of the Canadian forces in those countries in relation to: (a) offences solely against the property or security of Canada; (b) offences solely against the person or property of another member or employee of the Canadian forces; and (c) offences arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.
Canada has no primary right to exercise jurisdiction over dependents, but may request these countries to waive their right to exercise jurisdiction, and they are bound by the agreement to give sympathetic consideration to such a request.
With respect to the United Kingdom, until the United Kingdom ratifies the NATO status of forces agreement, the status of Canadian forces in that country will be governed by the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933. Under that act Canadian service courts and authorities may exercise within the United Kingdom, in matters concerning discipline and the internal administration of the Canadian forces, all the powers conferred upon them by the law of Canada. Criminal courts of the United Kingdom have the right to try members of the Canadian forces, their dependents and other accompanying civilians for any offence against the criminal law of the United Kingdom.

As regards Japan, an agreement has been concluded recently with Japan regarding the criminal jurisdiction over United Nations forces there. The provisions of this agreement are nearly identical with the criminal jurisdiction provisions of the NATO status of forces agreement. Jurisdiction vests concurrently in the Japanese courts and in the Canadian service tribunals, Canada having the primary right to exercise jurisdiction in relation to certain offences, and the Japanese courts having the primary right in relation to others. Japan has agreed to give sympathetic consideration to Canadian requests that Japan waive its primary right to exercise jurisdiction in cases where Canada considers such waiver to be of particular importance.
If it is the wish of hon. members I can supplement this with a short statement on the purport of section 10, based on that background.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You had better do it after six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
The Deputy Chairman:: We are on clause 10.


Ralph Osborne Campney: When the committee rose at six o'clock I indicated that I would like to make a short statement on clause 10 which I thought might be helpful because the subject matter is something that arises out of our attempt to keep abreast of developments in foreign countries and our relations under NATO with the jurisdictional systems of those countries.
Before I make this short statement I should like to say first that the fact of making dependents subject to the military code, as this section does to some degree, does not in any sense create a relationship in its normal sense under which a wife or a child would be obliged in any way to comply with ordinary military orders in the same sense as the husband or father would. In other words, the clause would not make a dependent achieve anything like the status of an officer or man. This clause really sets out the conditions under which persons accompanying our forces may be subject to the code of service discipline, with the exceptions I have mentioned, or the reservations I have noted.
The National Defence Act now provides in section 56 that a person who accompanies 83276-127
Canadian Forces Act
any unit or other element of the Canadian forces that is on service or active service in any place is subject to military law.
Under Canadian and also under British and American military law, civilians accompanying the armed forces when engaged in active operations have always been subject to military law. One of the reasons for this is that the forces are often operating, particularly in time of war, in areas where civil courts and authorities are non-existent or unable to act. It is obviously essential that persons accompanying the forces should be subject to some law at all times. Furthermore, the inherently dangerous nature of military activities makes it essential that close control be exercisable by the military authorities over all persons participating in those activities.
Clause 10 limits and defines the conditions under which civilians who accompany the forces are to be subject to service jurisdiction. The provisions of the clause other than those dealing with dependents out of Canada do not extend but rather limit the jurisdiction that might be exercised by the services over accompanying civilians.
Clause 10, if enacted, will make dependents who are living abroad with their husbands or fathers subject to the code of service discipline under such conditions as may be prescribed by the governor in council. It is desirable that such dependents should be made subject to the code of service discipline, as under arrangements that Canada has made with the governments of certain countries in which our forces are stationed they may thereby be wholly or partially exempted from the criminal jurisdiction of the courts of those countries.
Under the new clause such dependents must be tried by a special court presided over by a Canadian judge or member of the Canadian bar and other civilians subject to the code may be tried by this special court. It is possible to make trial by the special court mandatory for dependents because it is anticipated that dependents would not be present in a theatre of active operations. In so far as other civilians accompanying the forces are concerned, the legislation must be suitable for war conditions when it would not be practical to have a special court, and in this case such civilians would in all likelihood be tried by military courts.
It is not intended that the services will in fact exercise jurisdiction over civilians unless it is absolutely essential or in the best interests of the civilians themselves that they do so.
Within Canada the civil courts, by virtue of the National Defence Act, will continue

Canadian Forces Act
to be supreme and have the power to supplant the jurisdiction of service courts and themselves to try persons accused of any offence against the criminal law of Canada.
This legislation is being introduced at the present time as it is important for the protection of dependents and other civilians accompanying the forces abroad that the extent to which they are subject to Canadian jurisdiction be clearly defined. In other words, we are trying to create the necessary machinery to exercise maximum jurisdiction under all existing agreements and laws that we can acquire to ourselves in regard to our people abroad.
The arrangements made by Canada with a number of the countries in which our forces are or may be stationed enable Canadian criminal law and procedures to be applied in respect of persons accompanying our forces as an alternative to having the criminal law' and procedures of the country in which an alleged offence has been committed applied. In order to secure the benefits of these arrangements we must not only be in a position -I think this is the important fact about this clause-to exercise effective jurisdiction over such persons but it must also be clear to the authorities of the foreign country that we have and can exercise such jurisdiction. Clause 10 is designed to accomplish this.


Robert Weld Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for the statement he has made. There are one or two things arising out of the statement on which I would like to have further clarification.
The first point that occurs to me is that we are primarily interested, not in the country or the inhabitants of the country in which our troops may be serving but in protecting our men and their dependents who are serving in that country. I ask the minister to consider whether or not it might be advisable to give a right of election as to the manner in which a service man or his dependents would be tried. By so doing we could ensure that our people who are suddenly thrust into a mode of living or a code of ethics which is foreign to them may be sure that the offence which they are alleged to have committed is looked upon as we would look on it here. That is the first point I would like the minister to elaborate.
The second is that having included the dependents of servicemen under our service code we must admit that the dependents in many cases will be women. Have the necessary arrangements been made so that dependents convicted of an offence may serve out whatever punishment may be meted out by our courts?

The minister has indicated that we wish to retain control over our servicemen and their dependents, and that therefore it is highly desirable that wherever possible they be dealt with by our courts and subjected to punishment meted out by our courts. For that reason I would ask him to elaborate on the statement which he has made as to the manner in which these servicemen or their dependents will be dealt with when convicted.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the first point raised by the hon. member, I do not think it would be practical to provide a right of election for each individual who may be dealt with under this section. Except in Germany where we have assumed jurisdiction under terms governing the occupation forces, but which probably will not continue after this year, these matters are handled in accordance with such international arrangement. We have arrived at the position where we feel they would be sympathetically dealt with by these nations. It is after all a matter between governments, and if you were to transfer the right of election of every individual I do not think that would be realistic or practical.
The second question related to the problem of how we would deal with dependents who had been convicted under this procedure. May I just interject that I do not think there would be any intention of using this procedure in regard to petty offences, such as traffic offences, and so on. It would only be used in serious offences, carrying a period of imprisonment or something of that nature. I think that in such cases I am right in assuming that persons so convicted would be brought to Canada to serve their sentence.


John Angus MacLean: In that connection I was wondering what provision is contemplated in the case of the dependents of a man, for example, who might be posted from one unit to another and from one area to another. One of these dependents may be more or less an habitual offender. The serviceman, whose dependent the offender is, might be posted to a new unit. In a case of that kind what record of previous offences would be available? In other words, has provision been made for a conduct sheet for dependents, or something of that nature?


Ralph Osborne Campney: In answer to that, I would simply reiterate what I said a moment ago, that this procedure would not be utilized in the case of minor offences. If it were a serious offence and the dependent were sent back to Canada the record for that person would of course be available.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I have two or three questions I would like to put to the minister and perhaps I can put them all at once. First, I am thinking of the case of personnel attached to the services in Canada who are not dependents. I have in mind, for example, personnel who might be attached to the services from the national research council, or the defence research board, or organizations of that sort. What is their position?
My second question is this. Would the minister be good enough to make a statement indicating the position of personnel and their dependents who might be attached to the American forces stationed at bases in Newfoundland? As the minister knows, these bases in Newfoundland were granted to the United States forces before Newfoundland entered confederation. Have we the same jurisdiction there as we would have at any other station in Canada?
My third question is this. Is there still a distinction between types of courts-martial? I notice, for example, that the bill specifies general court-martial in every case. I am wondering why that is necessary. If there are still district courts-martial why could they not deal with minor offences committed by dependents?


Ralph Osborne Campney: In answer to the hon. gentleman's first question, I would say that the act does not apply to dependents in Canada under any circumstances.


John Angus MacLean: No, not dependents; I understand that.


Ralph Osborne Campney: As regards the second question dealing with Canadians attached to American forces in Newfoundland, they would be subject to Canadian law and would be tried under Canadian law.
As regards courts-martial, there are two types. The first, known as disciplinary courts-martial, deal with lesser offences to which this section would not be applied, and the second, known as general courts-martial, deal with serious offences.


John Angus MacLean: In connection with paragraph (a), I understand that civilian personnel attached to Canadian forces may or may not be in Canada. I am not referring to dependents but employees attached to the forces.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the short answer to that would be that, where circumstances permit, such persons would always be tried under Canadian civil law.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I suppose the only practical experience any of us here have had of dependents accompanying the forces 83276-1274
Canadian Forces Act
was in England during the last war when the wives of men serving in the forces stationed in England generally took houses in places where their husbands were stationed. These people were all dealt with under British civil law whenever any offences were committed. But what will be the situation of, for example, our air force squadrons stationed in Great Britain at the present time once this act is passed? Will it mean that in places such as Great Britain these dependents will then come under military law rather than British civil law, with of course its right to jury trial, and so forth, which they would lose if they came under military law?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Generally speaking this
procedure depends on the sympathetic consideration of the other nation concerned and its agreement to grant us jurisdiction. Speaking for myself, I would not think it likely that in Great Britain, from whom we have inherited our jurisprudence, we would ask permission to put this clause in operation. As I understand it, this procedure is not set up for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction generally but, rather, so that we can acquire it in countries where we believe, in the interests and for the protection of our own people, we should have it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The point I was getting at is this. Once this act is passed does it become t'he universal rule? I understand from what the minister has said that in Great Britain this would not be applied and dependents of servicemen would continue to be tried in the ordinary civil courts. I suppose the same would be true in places such as New Zealand and Australia and so on. But I am not quite clear from the minister's remarks whether that is going to be the case generally. I believe it is preferable that these dependents should be tried in civil courts in such places. But I am not quite clear whether, if this act is passed, it will be obligatory that they be tried before a military court.


Ralph Osborne Campney: It would not be obligatory at all. It would be necessary for us to seek jurisdiction and have an agreement to that effect, but it is likely that such jurisdiction would not be sought in the circumstances mentioned by the hon. member because of the basic similarity of our systems.


George Stanley White: I would like to point out to the minister that in clause 10 it states:
. . . that dependents who are subject to the code of service discipline must be tried . . .
That would appear to contradict what the minister just said.


Ralph Osborne Campney: That wording means that if a dependent is going to be tried by military

Canadian Forces Act
law he must be tried by a special court consisting of a Canadian judge or Canadian barrister of ten years' standing. In other words, there are certain classes, as the hon. member will notice, who must be tried-if they are going to be tried under the code of service discipline at all-by a civilian judge or barrister.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When we come to the latter part of the clause we find that it says that these various persons are to...
... be tried by a general court-martial consisting of a person, designated by the minister, who is or has been a judge of a superior court in Canada, or is a barrister . . .
And so on. I presume that that person will, in most cases, be the judge advocate? Is that the intention?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Or is it intended to appoint special people?


Ralph Osborne Campney: It is intended, if it be a judge, that he would be a civilian judge, or a civilian barrister. The idea is to bring the civilian judge or barrister into cases of that category.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, the intention is to appoint special people to act as judges in those courts and not to use members of the judge advocate general's branch for the purpose?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is correct.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I presume that again means a considerable increase in expense or cost of handling these matters?


Ralph Osborne Campney: From such study as we have been able to make and from observations made throughout the service, we do not anticipate a great number of these cases. This is a saving clause rather than a clause under which we think there will be a vast number of cases. Under the circumstances, I would not think that the need for this type of trial would arise very often.


Robert Weld Mitchell: I have two questions arising out of the remarks made by the minister. What is the right of appeal, if any, from the decision or sentence imposed by this court? The second, and perhaps more important matter, is this use of the words "sympathetic understanding". I do not think any of us in this committee are too much worried about the understanding that we would receive from the civilian authorities in the United Kingdom or, perhaps, those in France; but we may be considerably worried about the nature of the sympathetic understanding which we would receive from some

of the other continental countries who live under an entirely different code. For that reason I reiterate that something further should be done to define the rights of one of our citizens serving abroad to be tried by our courts, except perhaps for capital or similar offences.


Ralph Osborne Campney: As to the first question asked by the hon. member, an appeal would lie from any of these courts-martial to the court-martial appeal board, and, in some cases, with the final appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
With regard to the second question, the NATO agreement among all the constituent countries applies. These decisions have to be arrived at by agreement. One country cannot assert jurisdiction in another country unless the other country is willing to allow it to do so. This term "sympathetic understanding" in connection with these matters is a part of the NATO agreement among these countries. All have agreed on that. A country cannot assert something that it really has no legal right to assert. One can get a great deal further, I am sure, by negotiation and by following the term "sympathetic understanding" than in almost any other way. All NATO countries are in that position, trying to work with each other.


John Angus MacLean: I am still not quite clear about what is meant by the explanatory note in connection with clause 10. It says that dependents who are subject to the military code must be tried by a general court-martial and other civilians may be so tried. What power has a commanding officer, if any, to deal summarily with minor offences committed by dependents at that station, perhaps in permanent married quarters in another country, something that has no direct concern with the civilian population of the country concerned at all? To all intents and purposes it is an internal thing as far as the unit is concerned. What is the position of the commanding officer as to his powers of discipline or punishment of the dependent?


Ralph Osborne Campney: He would have no jurisdiction whatever over any dependent.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 11-False answers or false information.
Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the reason for making this addition to this clause? In other words, why does the clause need enlargement? Has it been found that, as it stands, it has not been able to meet the need? The chief false information, of course, which is given by anyone at the time of enlistment

is generally with regard to age. People state their age as being less than it is or more than it is in order to be enrolled. Is there some other sort of information which the present clause is not able to deal with and to provide punishment for offences?


Ralph Osborne Campney: This amendment is designed to provide for a case where a candidate for enrolment submits a false certificate of qualification as to trade or profession, or some document that purports to qualify him in some branch of professional life, and where such document proves to be false. I think the act, as it is drafted, without this slight amendment, would not cover that case.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I notice that paragraph (b) of section 112 states: Every person who knowingly. ..
(b) furnishes any false information or false document in relation to his enrolment, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment.
Very often this situation results from falsification of age and so forth. What sort of punishment is handed out in the case of a false statement with regard to age or false documentation with regard to age?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would think that the punishment should fit the crime. If it were a minor thing, the punishment would be light. If it were a major matter, such as something touching the root of his attempt to join the forces, it would be more severe. I might point out that this amendment applies only to a person who knowingly makes a false certificate. It is not wide open. It is applicable only if he deliberately and knowingly presents a certificate which service authorities would have a right to rely on, in considering whether he should or should not be accepted.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In that case he might be liable to two years' imprisonment?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That would take care of the worst case, where the circumstances were very serious and it would run from there to any lesser punishment that the presiding judge would think suitable for the offence.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 12-Conspiracy.
Douglas Scott Harkness: It seems to me that this clause is going to make liable to quite a heavy term of imprisonment, namely seven years, people who have committed really very minor offences. The old section said "conspires with any person to commit any indictable offence". That phrase is removed and the clause we are now being asked to pass just says "conspires with any other person... to commit an
Canadian Forces Act
offence under the code of service discipline". It might be simply that two or three people get together in order to cover up the absence without leave of another member of the unit, or something along that line. That is the sort of thing which frequently happens. Nevertheless, although that is a comparatively minor offence, a person would still be subject to this seven years' imprisonment. It seems to me that it might have been wiser to leave the provision in the form in which it was, rather than to make such minor things as getting a few extra rations out of the cookhouse, or a new overcoat, matters of conspiracy. Then, a man would come under this particular section.


Ralph Osborne Campney: May I correct the hon. member. The reference he made was not to the old act but to the Criminal Code. Under our code of service discipline there are no indictable offences. What this clause seeks to do is to parallel the Criminal Code. It would make the punishment as in parallel offences under the Criminal Code run from seven years down.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The point is that the Criminal Code always applied to members of the armed forces, so you could try a man by court-martial for any infringement of the Criminal Code. While this section was part of the Criminal Code, it was still part of the code of service discipline and a man could be tried under that section for conspiracy.


Ralph Osborne Campney: But that applied only to a man conspiring to commit a civil offence. This section as it applies to the armed services extends the law to cover conspiracies to commit service offences.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The point is that this provision of the Criminal Code is still going to be applicable. The passing of this new provision which we have in clause 12 is not going to remove this section of the Criminal Code dealing with conspiracy. It will still be an offence for which a man may be tried. In other words, you are going to have two types of conspiracy, so far as the services are concerned, for which a man might be tried.


Ralph Osborne Campney: This section, as I said, is only inserted in the bill for the purpose of dealing with conspiracies to commit service offences. The Criminal Code is not being ousted, because it deals with civilian offences. I do not think there is any clash as between the two.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
On clause 15-Restitution of property in case of conviction.
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Forces Act
Robert Weld Mitchell: Having looked at subclause 2, it would appear that a person having been acquitted is, nevertheless, found guilty-that is until you read subclause 3. Subclause 3(a) is understandable, but I would ask the minister if he would be good enough to give us illustrations of how subclauses 3(b) and 3(c) apply.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am informed that these two subclauses are both paraphrases of similar provisions in the Criminal Code. They have been there a long time and have worked. I cannot, offhand, give examples of each of them, but the same provisions exist in the Criminal Code, and we are trying to bring this act into line.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
On clause 17-Claims against associated states.
Robert Weld Mitchell: By clause 17 the government is accepting liabilities which, presumably, it would not otherwise have. Some arrangement must have been made with the other countries subscribing to the North Atlantic treaty. Will the minister advise us as to the terms of any such agreements, and as to whether or not the government of Canada, having accepted the liability, will be reimbursed for any amount that might be paid under this provision?


Ralph Osborne Campney: This clause is inserted in the bill to implement the NATO status of forces agreement, which has already been approved by this parliament, and thus put the crown in a position to carry out its undertaking.
In answer to the hon. member's second question, I would say that in cases of other nationals who are here in their services, the nation concerned with the national here would pay 75 per cent of the sum that might be awarded in damages, and we would pay 25 per cent. This is applicable among all the NATO nations, so the same condition would apply as between any two NATO countries. It is a general agreement under the NATO status of forces agreement.


Robert Weld Mitchell: So a Canadian soldier driving a Canadian vehicle in the United States would be covered by the same arrangement that applies to visiting forces here?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is correct.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If a Canadian soldier were driving a Canadian vehicle while he was not on duty, would the crown still be responsible?
[Mr. Campney. 1


Ralph Osborne Campney: No; it is my understanding that if a soldier is driving a government vehicle while not acting in the course of his employment he is personally liable.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 18-Days on reserve force service not computed.
Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add my protest to those of the hon. members for Esquimalt-Saanich and Winnipeg North Centre. I think this is a most unsatisfactory way in which to deal with amendments to a number of acts. Even here in committee, with deference, Mr. Chairman, we pass from one act to another, without even a pause.
If we must be compelled to have a bill of this nature placed before us, then at least when we pass from part I to part II or from part III to part IV there should be a chance for us at least to turn up the other act to which we have to make reference, and also a chance for the minister to make a statement with regard to the change he is proposing.
I think this is a disorderly way of conducting business, when we have placed before us an omnibus amending bill of this nature. Having said that, I wonder if the Associate Minister of National Defence would make a statement with regard to part IV.


Ralph Osborne Campney: This amendment was introduced owing to the fact that the section dealing with military service, as affecting members of parliament, dealt only with the army and attendance at regularly organized militia camps. It was antiquated, because its application was only to the army. The purport of this particular clause is to make the same provision for the three services- the army, the navy and the air force. Secondly, the intention is to make the clause apply to any training authorized by regulation or made under the National Defence Act.
In other words, it is an attempt to cover all the services, and to modernize the terminology as to when a member of parliament may take his place in any of the services without being penalized under the Senate and House of Commons Act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thank the associate
minister for his statement. This constitutes an orderly approach to part IV, and has given us time to catch our breath. I notice the associate minister said that the clause is now applicable to the three services. Then he said, I believe, that it modernizes the wording as to procedure. In my opinion however this modernization is done in such a way that it makes it very convenient for a reserve officer who happens to be a member of the House of Commons to undertake service duties that might not be of great importance and yet, by virtue possibly of
Canadian Forces Act
some minor duty, the member would find himself not obliged to report his absence from the house.
The non-modern version which the minister is replacing reads as follows:
In the calculation of any deduction from any member's sessional allowance on account of absence, days which were spent by such member on duty with his corps in a regularly organized militia camp or in travelling between Ottawa and such camp shall not be computed.
When we look at the proposed new section we see that it reads in this way:
In the calculation of any deduction from any member's sessional allowance on account of absence, days that were spent by such member on service as an officer or man of the reserve forces while on any training or other duty authorized by regulations or orders made under the National Defence Act shall not be computed.
I think there is a very great difference in these. Other hon. members who are with the reserve forces may have a different opinion from mine, but as a member of the reserve army I think this is giving an unusual privilege to a member of the House of Commons. I can quite understand attending a camp or organized specific training for a period of ten days or three weeks, where one's absence might be essential, for the sake of the unit to which he was attached.
However, as I read this clause it seems to open the door for claiming service for rather minor bits of duty. The expression is-
-on service as an officer or man of the reserve forces while on any training or other duty authorized by regulations or orders made under the National Defence Act-
And so on. I submit to the associate minister this problem:	If I, as commanding
officer of No. 108 manning depot in the city of Winnipeg, found that it was necessary for the unit to have a parade on Monday night of each week, would it be satisfactory if I left here on Friday night, attended the parade on Monday and then made my way back to Ottawa, arriving here on Wednesday?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or Thursday, the day the Toronto boys are leaving.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It would make a short week of attendance in the House of Commons, and I would have to give a move of that kind very serious consideration.
I put this further problem to the associate minister: let us suppose that, according to regulations concerning training authorized by the department, as an officer in a reserve unit I might find it convenient to attend a course here in Ottawa, or to become attached to some course to which I had not been posted, or if for purposes of training I visited some other unit in the neighbourhood, or in

Canadian Forces Act
some other province, would that constitute one of these days of permissible absence from the House of Commons?
X think the clause opens the door wide. I would not begin to set out the number of things that might occur to other people-and of course I do not mean hon. members who are now in the house. But these few matters have occurred to me at this time.
X doubt the wisdom of this modernization, as the associate minister has described it. Why not make some restriction? If it is for some course of training that is of major importance, then I think it would be perfectly satisfactory. If it permits a member of the house, who is also serving in the reserve forces, to absent himself for minor service duties, then I think it is unwise.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 19

Special provisions respecting
pensions.
George Randolph Pearkes: Will the minister make a statement on this part V?


Ralph Osborne Campney: A number of persons
enrolled in the special force for 18 months' service. Some have now transferred, or re-enrolled in the regular force, and it is felt that such persons should be able to count their time in the special force for all purposes under the defence service pension. This would enable them to do so.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think that is a wise provision. Does the service have to be continuous? Does the man concerned have to re-enlist in the regular forces immediately after his release from the Canadian forces special force?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No; there could be a hiatus.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is any time limit set?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, there is no time limit.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Widow's pension to be resumed.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: This clause was allowed to stand.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have to pay a tribute to the discerning eye of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich in that he established the possibility that some fortunate or unfortunate widow might marry and remarry a series of servicemen and accumulate a number of pensions. I have to modify slightly my admiration of him for bringing up this point because I find on looking into the matter that in parts I to IV of the Defence Services Pension Act the governor in council has authority to meet the situation to which he

refers. I should like to ask my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, to move an amendment which would make this clause conform to the parallel section in parts I to IV. The amendment I ask him to move reads as follows:
Strike out all the words in line 38 and substitute therefor the following:
"(la) Subject to regulations made by the governor in council, where payment of any widow's pension under."
Strike out the word "shall" in line 41 and substitute therefor the word "may".
So that the subsection will now read:
Subject to regulations made by the governor in council, where payment of any widow's pension under this part has been discontinued by reason of her remarriage and she again becomes a widow, payment of that pension may, to the extent that she is otherwise entitled under this part to receive the same, be resumed.


Mr. Claxlon:: I move accordingly.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the amendment carry?


George Randolph Pearkes: This statement covers the point that I raised. I do not want to be accused of robbing the widows, but I had genuine concern for the servicemen. I had to think of the possibility that perhaps at some future date a female Bluebeard might have married an elderly general after an elderly general in order to pile up pension after pension. It was more than I could bear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why the reference to a general?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Next sitting of the house.



VETERANS BENEFIT ACT


Hugues Lapointe: the second reading of Bill No. 101, respecting benefits for members of the Canadian forces.


Mr. Brooks:: Will the minister make a further statement?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, in explaining the purpose of the proposed bill I should like to be permitted to review very briefly the action which has been taken by this

parliament since the outbreak of the Korean hostilities in 1950, in order to entitle Canadians who served with the United Nations in these operations to appropriate veterans benefits and privileges.
On April 4, 1951, as hon. members will recall, I explained that the legislation which was being introduced at that time-that was the Veterans Benefit Act of 1951-would not include all the benefits given to veterans of world war II. The situation then was very-far from being static, and the government felt it advisable that some degree of flexibility and elasticity in regard to benefits to members of the special force should be maintained, and that legislation in regard to certain of the benefits should not be placed permanently on the statute books until such time as we had a much clearer picture of the situation.
As I said, this statement was made on the introduction of the Veterans Benefit Act of 1951. This act was extended in 1952 and in 1953 by two short acts. The Veterans Benefit Act of 1951, as the house will recall, entitled the veterans of Korean operations to certain benefits, while as regards other benefits the act authorized the governor in council to grant entitlement by order in council. Generally speaking, this flexible arrangement followed the practice in developing veterans legislation during and after world war II.
Now, the fighting in Korea having ceased, it seems appropriate to enact legislation in a form which, if it cannot be described as final, is as much so as any veterans legislation can be. That is, it is intended to meet present needs of the veterans in these operations for rehabilitation compensation for disabilities and other social protection established as a result of experience acquired during the last two world wars.
In considering the present bill, Mr. Speaker, it should be remembered that while in 1950 a group of men was specially enlisted for the Korean operation in what was called then the special force, over the whole period of the operations the majority of those serving in Korea were men on a regular engagement; that is, members of the regular force. A large number of these remained in the service. The rehabilitation problem is in many respects different in its nature and scope from that which followed world war II.
The bill which hon. members have before them for consideration covers all the legislation pertaining to Korean veterans. That is, it re-enacts in statutory form all the legislation passed by order in council under the authority of the Veterans Benefit Act relating to Korean veterans with the exception of war 83276-128
Veterans Benefit Act
veterans allowances which was made available in 1952 when the War Veterans Allowance Act itself was amended.
After world war I and world war II, cutoff dates were established for the various types of benefit after which time service did not entitle a man to the particular benefits. In connection with the Korean operations the cut-off date set for all benefits is October 31, 1953. This was announced to the house during the session of last fall. To be eligible for any benefit a serviceman must have served in or departed for a theatre of war prior to July 27, 1953, which was the date of the cease-fire, and the cut-off date is October 31, 1953. This is provided for in this bill.
As regards gratuities and re-establishment credits, under the Veterans Benefit Act, fifty cents per day is paid for each day's service in a theatre of operation, the same provision as for world war II. This forms the basic gratuity. A similar amount is available as a re-establishment credit. There has been no change in the principle of paying supplementary gratuities based on seven days' pay and allowances for 183 days of service in a theatre of operations, or a portion thereof, the same as applied during world war II.
Hon. members may be interested to note that as of December 31, 1953, gratuities in the amount of $5,165,396.11 had been paid to members of the forces who had served in Korea and to the dependents of those who died in service. Re-establishment credits in the amount of $3,283,786.50 have been set up for members of the forces with similar service. These credits average $175.67. In the same period a sum of $1,267,975.29 had been used by veterans as re-establishment credits.
The Veterans Rehabilitation Act has also been made available to Korean veterans. Entitlement to training follows the same general principles as after world war II. Training may be either vocational, undergraduate or postgraduate and an extension of the period of training normally equal to the period of service may be earned because of scholastic achievement. As of December 31, 1953, 36 veterans were taking vocational training; 45 veterans were taking university training; 73 veterans had completed vocational training; 3 had completed university training; 42 had withdrawn from vocational training; and 14 had withdrawn from university training. There is a provision in this bill for awaiting returns allowances identical with those that existed after world war II.
The provisions of the Pension Act have also been made available to Korean veterans by order in council. Hon. members may be interested in certain figures with regard to

Veterans Benefit Act
special force pensions. As at December 31, 1953, there were 823 disability pensions representing an annual liability of $298,639; there were 117 pensions being paid to dependents representing an annual liability of $147,792; this makes a total of 940 pensions representing a total annual liability of $446,431.
The bill also makes available the benefits of the Veterans Land Act to Korean veterans and also the Veterans Insurance Act under the same conditions as they were made available to veterans of world war II.
The house will recall that right from the start of Korean hostilities means were taken to provide for the reinstatement in civil employment of Korean veterans, the same privilege as was enjoyed by the veterans of world war II. These provisions have been in force since hostilities started and I am pleased to be able to say that with the co-operation of employers there has not been one complaint brought to our notice of a Korean veteran not being reinstated in his civil employment.
The benefits of the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act, which, as hon. members know, is administered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), are also available to Korean veterans. Similarly the provisions of the Civil Service Act which give preference to veterans who have served in a theatre of operation are in effect for Korean veterans. The benefits of the superannuation act are also made available to those who have active service.
After world war II a system of unemployment assistance known as out of work allowances was in effect. This was supplemented by payments being made to the unemployment insurance fund. In the case of Korean veterans contributions are paid to the unemployment insurance fund on behalf of men who have served since July 5, 1950. If a member of the force has served for at least 91 days he is entitled to a minimum of 3 months' protection under that act. As of December 31, $1,303,254.60 had been paid into the unemployment insurance fund by the Department of Veterans Affairs on behalf of some 21,999 veterans. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, the only remaining benefit which this act does not provide is the war veterans allowance and that is because it was made available by amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act in 1952.
I believe I have covered the scope of this act, and in conclusion I wish to state that it is the intention of the government to bring down other veterans legislation during the
[Mr. Lapointe.!
course of this session, besides the two bills which now appear in my name on the order paper.
It is therefore proposed to set up a special committee on veterans affairs this session. I would suggest, and I am quite sure my suggestion will meet with the approval of hon. members, that this bill, when it has received second reading, as well as the bill which will follow, second reading of which will be moved by my parliamentary assistant, should be referred to this special committee on veterans affairs. There is as yet no notice on the order paper as regards the creation of this committee, but it should appear tomorrow in Votes and Proceedings.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I very carefully followed the remarks made by the minister and I was particularly pleased with his concluding statement. I think everyone realizes that the men who served in Korea are entitled to all the benefits given to veterans who served in the second world war.
I am not going to discuss their service particularly, except to say that it was as good as the service of the men who served in both world wars, and their conditions of service were undoubtedly just as hard and as difficult as any endured in either of these two wars.
The minister has given us a review of the benefits which have already been received by Korean veterans. These, of course, were made possible by the regulations under the bill known as the Veterans Benefit Act, 1951. The new bill, which will undoubtedly go before the committee, does not seem to me to require examination at any great length here tonight. I might say though, Mr. Speaker, that the announcement made by the minister that a veterans committee will be set up must come as a surprise, and a very pleasant surprise, to most hon. members of this house. I for one welcome the minister's announcement. I do not like to be one of those who say, "I told you so", but I will say that I did tell the minister when the resolution on Bill 82 was before the house that I felt a committee should be set up and that this bill, Bill 101, and also Bill 102, should be referred to a special committee on veterans affairs. But that was not my idea only, Mr. Speaker. That procedure has been advocated by hon. members in all parts of the house, and not only once but time and time again.
I and other hon. members have not only recommended that a special committee be

set up for this session; we have asked, and I think the fact that we are setting up another committee this year only adds more strength to the argument we have used in the past, that there should be a permanent veterans affairs committee set up here in this House of Commons. I do not know just how many committees we have had since the first veterans committee sat, but I am satisfied it must be in the neighbourhood of 17 or 18, and on the average we must have had a veterans committee every second year.
It is not surprising that veterans committees are necessary and veterans legislation has to be changed so often, because, when we consider that the veterans of the first world war are now old men, and that their mode of living and the conditions under which they live have changed, and when we consider that we live in a period of cold war and have garrisons in Germany and other parts of the world, it must be evident that legislation must be enacted in order to deal with these changing circumstances. Also, we had recently a hot war in Korea to which Bill 101 has direct reference as regards veterans. In addition to these factors there is the increase in the cost of living, unemployment and other matters which concern veterans and lend emphasis to the necessity for the setting up of a permanent veterans committee in this house.
I do not wish to anticipate the legislation which will be brought before this committee, but the minister has mentioned the War Veterans Allowance Act. If any act in the whole veterans charter requires amendment it is the War Veterans Allowance Act, and I am pleased the minister has suggested that possibly that act will be amended when it comes before this committee. Am I correct?


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry to have to correct my hon. friend. I do not wish to say it will not be amended, but I did not say what he has suggested. What I said was that this bill made no reference to the War Veterans Allowance Act because the amendments in 1952 made such provisions.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister, then, did not suggest that the War Veterans Allowance Act would be amended, but I suggest to him that it is one of the acts that should be amended and I hope it will be brought before this veterans committee for amendment when the committee is set up. I will not go into the reasons why I believe it should be amended.
In addition to the other things I have mentioned, veterans housing and the Canadian Legion brief should be considered by the veterans committee.
83276-128J
Veterans Benefit Act
While this veterans committee is being contemplated I would also like to bring to the minister's attention the fact that we have had great difficulty in previous veterans committees, over our terms of reference. They have always been too narrow and we have always felt circumscribed when dealing with veterans affairs in committee, and we have never felt we could do justice to the matters which were brought before the committee for attention. I would suggest to the minister that the terms of reference of this committee, if and when it is set up, and I am satisfied it will be if the minister says so, should be made broad enough to include the outstanding problems of veterans at the present time.
I,	Mr. Speaker, like some other hon. members, had prepared considerable material which I intended to use in discussing Bill No. 101, but I think it would only be a waste of time to discuss these matters now when they can be more thoroughly discussed in the veterans committee. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to say at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to express pleasure at the announcement made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) to the effect that the special committee on veterans affairs is to be established.
I regret that some of my colleagues, who might be chosen as members of that committee, do not happen to be here in the chamber at this particular moment. I know I speak for them and for all of us in this group when I say we are glad that at last this decision has been made. I may say that, from the way in which the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) answered the question put to him only a day or two ago by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch),
I dared to hope that perhaps the softening up process was having its effect and that we would get such a committee at this session.
I see a little procedural problem as to how you will handle the matter, Mr. Speaker, if second reading is concluded tonight and the Minister of Veterans Affairs then wishes to ask that the bill be referred to a committee that has not yet been appointed. But I am sure that, if anything that is proper can be proposed to deal with that situation, the house will certainly give its consent. The desirability of having this committee is clear and the desirability of referring to that committee this and other legislation like it is beyond question.
Like others, we regret that this bill is another one of these omnibus measures that sets out to amend the sections of a number of different statutes. This time the number

Veterans Benefit Act
is eight or ten. I think we are running into confusion here as we were with regard to the legislation that was before us just a little while ago. However, it is also to be noted that despite the fact that this bill amends perhaps ten different acts affecting veterans and despite the fact that there are one or two other pieces of legislation which we now know may go to the special committee on veterans affairs, there are one or two other items of veterans legislation which have not yet been mentioned by the minister but which in our view certainly must be considered by that committee.
As the minister knows, there is a strong feeling all over the house that, without further delay, something should be done with regard to the War Veterans Allowance Act. As he knows, during debate on another question that took place last week, members in all parts of the house expressed great sympathy with the burnt-out pensioners and wanted something done for them at this session. I echo the sentiments of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) when I say I hope that the terms of reference of that committee will be broad enough to make it possible for the committee to consider the War Veterans Allowance Act with respect to increasing the amount, raising the permissible income or eliminating the means test, and so on. These are matters which are familiar to all of us.
There are times in parliament when committees are a device for shelving issues. There are committees that have performed that function. But I think it is to be said that amongst the better committees that we have had in parliament, over the years that 1 have been here, have been the special committees on veterans affairs. I know of one or two others which have been very good committees as well, but the veterans affairs committees have been committees which have addressed themselves directly and sympathetically, on a non-partisan basis, to the needs of our veterans and to the justice that we feel should be accorded to them. When this committee is set up, if it is given the same kind of opportunity that was given to previous committees on veterans affairs, I am satisfied that it will consider these matters sympathetically and carefully; and I am confident that it will bring back to the house recommendations that will be worth while.
I must point out, however, that the basic question will be the terms of reference. If those terms of reference are restricted or are so narrow as to deny to the members of that
[Mr. Knowles.1
committee the right to discuss the Pension Act in all its aspects or the right to discuss the extremely important War Veterans Allowance Act, then the committee will not be able to do the kind of job it has done in the past.
In view of the fact that the committee on veterans affairs is to be set up, it is hardly necessary to discuss this bill at length. As I indicated with regard to the bill that we were considering previously, I should like to see some way found for dealing with necessary amendments to veterans legislation, other than this omnibus type of bill. Perhaps the committee will have a chance to discuss that matter.
On behalf of the members of this group, Mr. Speaker-those who are veterans and those of us who are not-I welcome the announcement that has been made tonight. I trust there will be no detracting from the value of that announcement by limited terms of reference but rather that they will be broad enough so that we can have the kind of veterans affairs committee that will bring back to parliament the recommendations which our veterans so definitely deserve.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for me to say very much at this stage. However, I should like to say that we in this group are glad that the benefits of the veterans charter are being made available, by statute, to the Korean veterans. It is a far more satisfactory situation than that of having to depend upon orders in council. We are also very glad to hear the minister say that a special committee on veterans affairs is to be set up. Of course, we would have been better pleased if he had been able to announce that a standing committee was going to be set up. That is something which the various veterans organizations have been asking for year after year and which a number of members in this house have also asked for.
I should also like to join with other members in pleading with the minister that, when this committee is set up, the terms of reference should be made sufficiently wide so that it can deal adequately with veterans problems. I would say that the most pressing need at this time is for amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. As a matter of fact, I think I would say that if the terms of reference were going to be so narrow that we could not deal with the War Veterans Allowance Act, it would be better not to set the committee up at all because that would be like adding insult to injury. The main

question that concerns all veterans today is the question of the War Veterans Allowance Act. Therefore, to set up that committee without allowing it to deal with that act would, in my opinion, be just a gesture. I hope the minister will be able to give assurance on that point. That is all I will say at this time.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, there is just one thought I should like to place before the members of the house and particularly before the minister. As I understand this bill, it covers only those young Canadians who had gone to Korea before July 27, 1953, the date on which fighting stopped in that country.
No help of this kind is given to the men who have gone to Korea since that time or to the men who have gone with our forces to Germany at any time. None of them are eligible for these benefits. Of course, I am not advocating that the young men who have not been in the fighting should get the same benefits as those who have actually done fighting. But here we have a situation which has never before been faced by a Canadian parliament. We have thousands of our young men being asked to go as volunteers to serve either in Europe or in Asia for quite an extended period of time. Of necessity, that means that their establishment in life or their preparations for their lifework must be interrupted.
Probably most of them have gone out of a spirit of adventure. For them there is an attraction in getting abroad and seeing other parts of the world. But the point is that most of these men are not making the navy, the army or the air force their career; that is probably particularly true of the army and the air force. I believe it would be of great value to this nation if some provision were made whereby on their discharge from the forces, these young men could get either educational assistance or assistance with vocational training.
Last year I suggested some such plan to the minister with regard to the men in Germany. His reply was that these men had not been in a theatre of war, and therefore were not entitled to any benefits. I suggest that our thinking should be a little more advanced, and that we should make provision to help these young men. A few months ago I received a letter from a young lad serving in Germany, and I should like to quote part of the letter because it clearly shows the feeling of at least some of these young Canadians. He said:
The majority of ordinary ranks apply for release at the end of their engagements. Some just like their freedom-some like the prospect of high
Veterans Benefit Act
wages, hoping to get good jobs with more pay. Very few go back to school because it takes money, and lots to do that.
More chaps would go to school if the government made it easy for them. In this way they would not be an unemployment problem. A lot of fellows went to university after the last war with D.V.A. help (example my elder brother-he got an engineering degree out of it). Canada will benefit in the long run.
There cannot be the slightest doubt that Canada benefited to a large extent by the training given to the young men who returned from the second world war. There never was a finer investment made by this country than the money put into helping with the training of those thousands of young Canadians. I believe that some such scheme should be started at this time for these other young Canadians who have volunteered for service outside the country, and are either with our forces in Korea or in Germany. If that provision were made, I think it would also be quite an inducement to young men to enlist, especially if they realized that when they came back they would be helped with their education. It would be helpful to the morale of those units serving away from Canada. These men must get lonesome and homesick, being away from this country for long periods during which they are serving, now without the excitement of actual fighting. I believe we would be well advised to work out some scheme now for helping them with their training when they return to Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Any apparent confusion I am showing at the moment, Mr. Speaker, is due to the confused nature of the bill in front of us. It is another one of those omnibus bills because it refers to no fewer than ten acts. As a preliminary, may I say we welcome the statement of the minister that a special committee on veterans affairs will be appointed at this session. A demand has been put forward time and time again for a committee of that nature on a permanent basis. It is welcome to hear the news that such a committee will be set up, even on a temporary basis.
There is no question in anyone's mind that in the past the committees on veterans affairs have served a useful purpose indeed. The veterans of Canada have benefited from the work of these committees. The veterans legislation, which in many respects is of such a high order, has resulted from the work of the veterans committee and this house. I am sure there will be general agreement and pleasure that the minister has seen fit to make arrangements for the appointment of such a committee at this time. We hope that when the reference is given to that committee it will be all-inclusive, and will

Veterans Benefit Act
cover all matters affecting veterans across Canada. Year after year we have brought forward some of the matters which seriously concern veterans, and unless the minister makes some provision for the committee to consider these matters, the committee will fail in the attempt that should be made in this house on behalf of the veterans. There are still many problems which require settlement, and of course the problem of those on war veterans allowance comes to mind.
This bill before us seems to me to be a confusing document. Bill No. 101, an act respecting benefits for members of the Canadian forces, undertakes to deal with ten separate acts. It deals with the War Service Grants Act; Veterans Rehabilitation Act; the Pension Act; Veterans Land Act; Veterans Insurance Act; Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act; Civil Service Act; Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act; Public Service Superannuation Act; Unemployment Insurance Act. The laws of our country are sufficiently complicated, even for those who are engaged in a day to day attempt to interpret them. As we have had pointed out by laymen looking at the Criminal Code, the laws are a bit confusing to laymen. I feel that this bill is going to add to the confusion. I am not at all clear as to how a person is going to deal quickly with some of the problems that arise if this bill becomes law.
As it stands, this bill appears to differ from the one we were considering a few moments ago, which introduced amendments to the various sections of five different acts. The bill was introduced by the Department of National Defence. Under those circumstances the sections would be amended and an office consolidation, or in time the revised statutes, would show clearly the changes that had been made. Here we have the Veterans Benefit Act, 1954, as this may be cited. It deals in ever so many paragraphs with ten separate acts. A search for information concerning, for example, the Pension Act will eventually lead you to this particular act, section 5. What reference will there be in the Pension Act to indicate to anyone that he must look further into this Veterans Benefit Act, 1954? I would think there would be some other way of dealing with this matter.
Again, as we go through this later on, is the minister going to give us information, act by act? He has not been as obliging as the Associate Minister of National Defence, who separated his recent omnibus bill into parts I to V. There are no separations into parts in this bill, and consequently consideration of it becomes extremely difficult.

Then, where do we stand in the matter of dealing with a general principle, when there are references to so many acts throughout the bill? This is another feature that makes it extremely difficult. The purpose of debate on second reading is to discuss the principle of the bill. In this instance are we to discuss ten different principles, or is there only one? It was not clear to me from the minister's statement just what the situation is in that regard.
If one can discern a principle in this peculiar bill it is that regulations are now made law. We have a suggestion that in some of these sections statutory re-enactment of regulations is taking place. This would seem to be a bit confusing in terminology. I have asked my colleagues how you can re-enact something that had never been enacted. A regulation may be published, but it is not enacted. But now it seems we are re-enacting regulations.
The bill, as I see it, generally amounts to that. In large measure it is a sort of interpretation bill, or a bill which explains the meanings of the various sections in ten different acts, and extends those meanings by way of regulations which, in times past, have been published in order that those acts might be operative.
Would it not have been better to have retained the regulations as regulations, or to have amended the pertinent sections of the ten acts dealt with? If this goes on, if we are to have bills of this nature presented to us, then I think it is going to become extraordinarily difficult for people who require to know the law to find their way about in these documents. It seems rather odd that, just after a revision of the statutes-which certainly has been very helpful-we are now piling in bills of this nature which will only add to the confusion.
I hope this will be the last time the Department of Veterans Affairs will bring forward a bill of this nature for serious consideration-because I am not treating this lightly. Serious consideration should be given to dealing with acts in the normal way in which we have dealt with other acts. Why does this particular department, and its neighbour the Department of National Defence, have to produce these omnibus bills? Are the other departments going to follow suit? Each department administers more than one act. Is this a system that is going to be adopted? If so, then it seems to me it will cause no end of difficulty. It is creating sufficient difficulty right now, and my hope is that with protests of this nature, and perhaps subsequent protests from the committee that



II, 1954

[Stage Direction]
has been proposed, in future the minister will go back to the other method of dealing with amendments to our statutes.
Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, as one member in the house, I am pleased with the bill. I think it indicates that there is no finality to veterans legislation. I am also pleased that the minister made the announcement that a veterans affairs committee will be set up. I think consideration should be given to making the veterans affairs committee a standing committee of the house.
As I understand the principle of the bill before us, it is merely to open up the many sections of veterans legislation for the purpose of relating the Korean forces to it, and talking about the whole matter generally. I think that is the correct approach. I agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat, in expressing the hope that we will be able to bring about a consolidation at this time, and that we will not have any new forces to include in years to come.
There is a good deal of material in this measure that could be debated for a long time. However, in view of the fact that the bill is going to a committee, and that the committee will be in a position to call representatives of the department for questioning, it may not be necessary to discuss the matter at great length now.
It is understood that the minister is bringing in a resolution tomorrow for the purpose of setting up a committee. May I express the hope that the resolution will be broad enough in its terms of reference to enable it to discuss many matters that are not exactly spelled out in this bill. I hope the committee will not be simply a legislation examining committee, such as we had on at least one occasion. The War Veterans Allowance Act very definitely has to be examined at this session of parliament; because if there is one question all members are running into right across the country, it is the necessity for changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act. I know the minister is aware of this fact.
Then, I would like to see a full discussion in the committee with respect to veterans education. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) that a good job was done after the last war. I do suggest however that we failed in one respect, and that was that the whole emphasis was on university training. A large percentage of the young men who came out of the services and did not have university entrance qualifications were denied education. I think any examination of the
Veterans Benefit Act
records will prove that we should have gone into an extended vocational training scheme at that time, along with our university scheme. This is something that is badly needed. I fear that if in the committee we are permitted only to examine the terms of this bill, then we may not be allowed to discuss educational matters.
I hope the minister will avoid a long discussion tomorrow, when he brings in his resolution, by making the terms of reference broad enough to prevent a discussion in the house and to permit discussions in the committee of all phases of veterans problems. I do not want to speak at greater length at this time, and I look forward to giving these matters consideration in committee.


Mr. Elmore Philpoii (Vancouver South):: I
just want to add a word to say how glad I think all veterans of the whole country, certainly all the veteran members on both sides of this house, will be at the minister's announcement tonight that a special committee is to be appointed this year. I have a personal reason for being glad because now it gives me the answer to the 427 postcards that are lying on my desk upstairs.
What I have seen in this house so far would indicate to me that, regardless of the terms of reference, hon. members have no particular difficulty in discussing whatever they have uppermost in their minds. I know that most of us who are in close contact with what the veterans are saying and thinking know perfectly well that the one thing that is uppermost in their minds across the country today is the war veterans allowance and particularly the level of extra permissible income on that allowance.
All I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, is that in view of the fact that Canada has long had the deserved reputation all over the world of having the best and most advanced veterans welfare legislation in the whole world, I hope the terms of reference that the minister will bring down tomorrow will be very liberal indeed.


George Clyde Nowlan: I certainly do not want to hold up this legislation, but I should like to have one minute to endorse what has been said by others in expressing appreciation of the fact that we now know that there will be a committee, and it is our prayer that the committee will be worth while and that the terms of reference will be wide enough to include various matters, and particularly the war veterans allowance. If that is not done I am afraid there will be a great deal of disappointment and the results will certainly not be as good as they otherwise would.

Veterans Benefit Act
My second point is that I want to join in the protest which was made by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), in his statement with respect to this omnibus bill. I sent out for the Veterans Benefit Act of 1951. I was going to say that it was the present minister who was in charge of that bill, but of course it was a different minister. At that time we had the Veterans Benefit Act and we also passed three separate acts, which are now included in the omnibus bill that we have before us tonight.
I presume the minister will not have too much sympathy for those practising law in other places, but some day he may have to practise law again himself. In fact, we hope that that day will come before too long. When he does, he will have, of course, an advantage over other lawyers, because he will have sat here and he will know he has to turn up the omnibus act to find the amendments to twelve different acts. How are other lawyers across Canada who are consulted by clients, by pensioners, by war veterans and so on, to get the information? They will have to get the Pension Act and get all these other acts. They will have to look up the index and find the amendments. Then they will advise their clients, and later on they will find that because the minister did not want to spend too much time in the house and did not want to bring in eleven or twelve different acts, he tied them all up in one bundle. This is the first time it has happened with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The Department of National Defence have done this before and they have set a bad example. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), who is sitting in front of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, must have had
a bad influence upon the minister because in 1951 the Department of Veterans Affairs at least introduced separate bills. Today we find that they are bringing in one bill and including all these others. I think it is a bad principle. It is wrong; it is unfair to the veterans themselves. If this is going to be done, well, then, why does not the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) bring in an omnibus bill to deal with air transport, the Canadian National Railways, the harbours board and a dozen other things? Why does he not bundle up all the things that he has to deal with and bring them in in one bill? Tonight we are endorsing a principle which I think is wrong, and I want to express my disapproval of it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to make one statement. I have been in this house and have heard this practice criticized again and again. To the best of my recollection I have never seen anyone bold enough to stand up and say one word in favour of it.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Hugues Lapointe: I move that the bill be referred to a special committee on veterans affairs to be appointed at a later date.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Brooke Claxton: The time is approaching when we might adjourn. Tomorrow, as announced, we will take up the Criminal Code. If we conclude that I would hope that hon. members would agree to adjourn.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 12, 1954