1959-07-01

DOMINION DAY

[Stage Direction]
92nd anniversary of confederation
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbalter (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, not only is this the 92nd anniversary of confederation but it is the first of Canada's birthdays on which we have been honoured by the presence in Ottawa of the monarch. I am sure that hon. members would wish on this occasion to express the pride of all Canadians in having Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Philip here on Canadian soil joining with us in the celebration of Dominion day. Before the hour is out Her Majesty will be transmitting her message to her Canadian subjects, thereby once more expressing something of the relationship between Canada and the other nations of the commonwealth.
On this day as we look back on the history of our country and her great traditions, we as fellow Canadians will not lose sight of the fact, I am sure, that in Canada's newest province, Newfoundland, this is Memorial day as well, in memory of that gallant battalion of Newfoundlanders who, almost decimated, gave their all for the things in which they and we believe. So on this day I think Canadians as a whole will honour our past and its achievements such as I have mentioned in connection with Memorial day in Newfoundland, will gain strength from the present and dedicate ourselves to the future.
In that spirit, sir, I suggest that hon. members could do no better than follow the course of the past and sing God Save the Queen and O Canada.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: On behalf of our party, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to associate ourselves with what the Prime Minister has said. This is our national day; it is our 92nd birthday, which in itself is an indication that Canada is no longer one of the younger countries of the world but, even in terms of years, is approaching maturity. It is a very happy coincidence -perhaps "coincidence" is not exactly the 66968-9-338
right word to use-it is a happy circumstance, Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has mentioned, that our Queen, the Queen of Canada, is celebrating our national day with us on Canadian soil and that shortly she will be addressing the Canadian people.
The Prime Minister referred to the fact that this is also Memorial day in Newfoundland, the anniversary of that tragic day in Newfoundland's history, that tragic and glorious July 1, 1916, a date many of us will not forget. This reminds us that if Canada has achieved the position in the world that I think we have achieved, it is due in large part to the sacrifices of Canadians in bygone days in peace and in war, of which this was one of the most tragic and the most glorious.
The presence of the Queen and Prince Philip in our midst at this time is an indication, one of which I think we should be happy and proud, that while we are a developing country our roots are deep in the traditions and in the past of our mother country, the United Kingdom and, indeed, of our mother country of France. Because our roots are deep it is assurance, indeed it is reassurance, that we will proceed forward to that glorious destiny which is bound to be ours in Canada if any country has any destiny of any kind in this uncertain world.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me on behalf of the C.C.F. party to join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in saying how pleased we are that Her Majesty and Prince Philip are able to be with us today when we are celebrating Canada's 92nd anniversary. We note also, as has already been said, that this day is commemorated because it is Memorial day in the province of Newfoundland.
In its 92 years as a nation our country has made great progress. Our nation has been founded on two main cultures. Our nation has shown an example to the world in tolerance and understanding and in proving that people of different languages and diverse cultures can live and work together in a democratic framework to build a nation of which every citizen is proud. We look across the world today with the feeling that although we are not, either by way of population or economic strength, the mightiest of the nations, yet by peaceful example, by

Dominion Day
peaceful co-operation with other nations, by an example of tolerance at home, we can be first among the leaders of the nations of the world.
Whereupon the members of the house rose and sang
God Save the Queen and
O Canada



ANNOUNCEMENT OF AFTERNOON HOLIDAY FOR STAFF

Mr. Speaker:: May I report to the house that as we are not sitting this afternoon I have taken the liberty of making an arrangement which I hope will commend itself to the house as being in the spirit of the day, namely that the services of the house that are not required this afternoon will be dispensed with. The chiefs of staff have been advised to free all staff not needed to carry on essential services at one o'clock.



VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of standing committee on veterans affairs.-Mr. Dinsdale.


Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What is the total amount of money provided in estimates for advances in accordance with agreements entered into or to be entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act. for each of the fiscal years since the said act came into force?
2.	What is the total amount actually spent in the province of Nova Scotia for each of the fiscal years mentioned in question 1?
3.	What is the total amount actually spent in the province of New Brunswick for each of the fiscal years mentioned in question 1?
4.	Of the amounts mentioned in questions 2 and 3. what sum has been spent (a) in Nova Scotia: (b) in New Brunswick, for the construction of thermo plants?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is as follows:
1. Fiscal year 1957/58 (vote 873)	
Fiscal year 1958/59
Vote 213	
Vote 507	
Vote 659 (revote of part of vote 873, 1957/58)	
Fiscal year 1959/60
Vote 213	
Vote 477		
2. Fiscal year 1958/59	
Fiscal year 1959/60 (province estimates claims may amount to)	
3.	Fiscal year 1957/58	
(Payment made February 6, 1959) Fiscal year 1958/59
(Transmission facilities)	
(Coal subvention)	
(Claims on hand)	
Fiscal year 1959/60
(Coal subvention)	
(Province's estimate)	
4.	(a) It is estimated that $3,459,883.00 may be paid in 1959/60 in connection with a 20 megawatt thermal plant at Trenton.
(b) It is estimated that $5,632,953.00 may be paid in 1959/60 in connection with the East Saint John plant.
[Mr. Argue.)

$ 1,700,000.00 11,329,000.00	
2,290,000.00	15,319,000.00
$ 1,700,000.00 11,627,000.00	13,327,000.00
$ 1,130,776.25	
7,739,684.48	$ 8,870,460.73
715,772.10	
364,410.09 562,157.06 1,269,320.34	
83,439.50 7,985,000.00	
$10,980,099.09



THERMO POWER PLANT,

Mr. EAST SAINT JOHN, N.B. , Robichaud: 1.	Is work presently underway for the construction of a thermo power plant at East Saint John, New Brunswick?
2.	If so: (a) what is the estimated cost of the proposed plant? (b) has a specific agreement been

signed with the federal government as required under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act? (c) if such an agreement has not been signed, what is the reason for the delay?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The answer to the first question is yes.
The answer to the second question, part (a) is $10 million.
The answer to part (b) is that a master agreement is in force between Canada and New Brunswick pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act but no subsidiary agreement has been signed regarding the East Saint John thermal plant.
The answer to part (c) is, as I indicated to the house on May 19, 1959, that the province of New Brunswick has set up a royal commission to consider policy on the costs and operation of this plant. When the commission's report is received the province will undoubtedly consider its future course of action as regards an agreement with the federal government.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


ATLANTIC PROVINCES


Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Have any special fiscal considerations been offered by the government to encourage private enterprises to locate in the Atlantic provinces to encourage the processing of natural resources?
2.	If so, what are those considerations?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that this question be made an order for return.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, the question is a very simple one, and it does not appear to me that it needs to be buried as so many starred questions have been buried already during this session.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: The reason is that the answer will require information from more than one department, so I made the proposal in order to facilitate the furnishing of complete information, on the assumption that that was what the hon. gentleman sought.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might draw Your
Honour's attention to the fact this question has already been on the order paper for 30 days.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



FEDERAL BROADCASTS, CJON, ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.

Mr. Argue: 1. Has any department of the federal government or any cabinet minister made any broadcasts over 66968-9-338J
Motions for Papers
CJON St. John's, Newfoundland, since January 1, 1953?
2.	If so, by whom, and on what date were these made each year?
3.	What was the cost of each broadcast, on what date was each paid and to whom?



NATIONAL REVENUE AND IMMIGRATION STATISTICS, B.C. PORTS

Mr. Herridge: 1.	What staff is employed by (a) the Department of National Revenue; (b) the Department of Citizenship and Immigration at the ports of Kingsgate, Waneta, Nelway, Paterson, Osoyoos, British Columbia?
2.	What are the hours of service?
3.	What was the total number of (a) persons; (b) vehicles, (i) entering Canada; (ii) leaving Canada, at each of the above ports during each of the fiscal years 1954-55, 1955-56, 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59?
4.	What was the total value of (a) exports; (b) imports, at each of these ports during each of the above years?
5.	What was the total revenue collected at these ports for each of the above mentioned years?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 127-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, inspection reports, test reports, agreements, contracts, and other documents and reports, exchanged between any official of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, any cabinet minister, and the United States corps of engineers, the St. Lawrence seaway development corporation, contractors, their engineers, or any representative of the contractors, since November 13, 1956, regarding construction of the substructure and superstructure of the Cornwall high level bridge, and any remedial work necessitated on any part thereon.
Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to this motion passing, subject to the usual reservation regarding privileged documents and subject to the consent of the United States government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 128-Mr. Robichaud:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the federal department of fisheries and any individual or corporation or any other party, in relation to the operation of herring set nets or purse seine in any of the waters adjoining Gloucester county, New Brunswick, for the period January 1, 1958 to date. Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of

Inquiries of the Ministry Finance in a position to answer the questions asked the other day in connection with the conference of provincial treasurers which opens next Monday in Ottawa?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have now seen the questions which were asked on Monday and Tuesday by the Leader of the Opposition in this respect while I was in Toronto in attendance on Her Majesty. So far as Monday's question is concerned, which asked if an invitation had been extended by the government to the premiers of the provinces to attend the conference, I may say that the answer is in the negative. This conference was designed as one of a financial nature, and the invitation was extended to the provincial treasurers or provincial ministers of finance. Of course no attempt was made to draw any limits or make any suggestions as to those whom the provincial treasurer or minister of finance might wish to have associated with him in the delegation representing the province.
There are three provinces in which the provincial treasurer or minister of finance is also the premier. They are British Columbia, Manitoba and Nova Scotia. In these three cases the premier of the province will be attending in his capacity as provincial treasurer. We have also received from the treasurer of Prince Edward Island an intimation that the premier of that province will also be attending the conference with him. I have not had any communication from the province of Quebec in this respect, although references were made in a debate in the house several weeks ago to a newspaper report indicating that the prime minister of Quebec would be attending the conference along with the minister of finance of that province.
The question on Tuesday asked me to make some statement concerning the agenda to be brought before the conference. We prepared in the Department of Finance some weeks ago a quite comprehensive list of proposed subjects which included all those which had been suggested by any of the provinces in the course of the communications which had passed between Ottawa and the capitals of the provinces or which had been discussed in the course of the visit made to all the provincial capitals by the director of the dominion-provincial relations division of the Department of Finance.
This document, which was of a confidential nature, was submitted to all the provincial treasurers or provincial ministers of finance for their approval. I may say that we have had communications from a majority of the provincial treasurers in the meantime approving the proposed list of topics. I think we
[Mr. Pearson.3

have not yet heard from quite all but have heard from the majority of them.
Subject to the decision of the conference itself when it assembles next Monday, this list of proposed subjects will form the basis of discussion at the conference and in the further meeting to follow. It will involve on the part of the conference itself decisions with regard to priorities, selection, arrangement and then the reference to the meeting of the continuing committee of officials as the conference of ministers may decide.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Did I understand the minister to say that no official communication had been received by him that the premier of Quebec would be attending?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not believe there has been any official communication on that subject. There had not been any, to my
knowledge, up to the time I left for Toronto at the end of last week.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Can the
Minister of Finance say whether any of the conference proceedings will be open to the public, as is usual on occasions when heads of government meet at such conferences; and in view of the strong statement made by Premier Roblin last week that he thought there should be held at the earliest possible moment a dominion-provincial conference at the usual level, is the hon. gentleman in a position to say, after his two-day absence from this house which undoubtedly has given him an opportunity for relaxation, whether there will be such a conference before the end of this calendar year in order to fulfil the promises made by the Prime Minister and the government?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, all promises made by the government have been fulfilled, and the government is continuing in the same worthy spirit to carry forward the work which is being done to repair the damage caused to dominion-provincial relations by our predecessors. While the task which has been handed on to us is not an easy one, we think we shall in time repair the damage that was done before we were entrusted with this responsibility.
I was asked whether these meetings would be open to the public. Again, this is a matter for decision of the conference itself. It is my understanding, and indeed this has been confirmed by the view of a considerable number of ministers who will be attending the conference, that having regard to the nature of the conference it ought to proceed in camera.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question supplementary to those

which have been asked by my colleagues. Would the Prime Minister consider setting aside a day for the purpose of discussing some of the matters that might be presented before the provincial treasurers and ministers of finance in order to enable us in Ottawa to know in general what views the Minister of Finance will express on behalf of the government of Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: I notice that the hon. gentleman is reading from Hansard, and I seem to recollect that the answer given at the time was that there was no necessity of that being done. Nothing was done to achieve the suggestion contained in the question, and having regard to the amount of discussion which has already taken place on this subject-ten days during this session, the Minister of Finance points out-I am sure that every view that could possibly be canvassed has been canvassed to date.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the Prime Minister mean by that reply that he now thinks Mr. St. Laurent was right in his answer at that time?


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to enter into controversy with a right hon. gentleman who is no longer a member of the house.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
the Minister of Finance a question arising out of the answer he gave to the Leader of the Opposition. In that answer he said there was no hard and fast agenda which had been submitted, but that on the other hand there was a comprehensive report which had been prepared by the Minister of Finance. Has that comprehensive report been sent out to those who are attending the conference and, second is federal aid to universities one of the subjects referred to?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The document to which I referred in my earlier statement this morning went out to all the provincial treasurers some weeks ago, and their comments were invited as to whether they thought it would furnish an acceptable agenda for the conference. The contents of the document were confidential, and the document has not been released from that category.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister indicate whether, if most of the provincial governments have indicated their acceptance of this proposed agenda, those which have done so include the government of the province of Quebec?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not seen the communications, if any, which have come in within the last two days, and of course the government offices are closed today, so
Inquiries of the Ministry my answer must not be taken as being complete up to this moment. I do not think the province of Quebec has yet made any comment on the scope of the proposed list of topics.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the fact that some provincial premiers have indicated formally or in some way their intention of attending this conference, may I ask the minister if he draws any special conclusion from the fact that the premier of Quebec, announcing his decision to come, has not advised the government of his intention to do so?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think I would draw any conclusion from that except that the present government does not question the right of any provincial government to make its own selection. It may not be easy for the hon. gentleman to realize that the present federal government does not attempt to dictate to the provinces in any shape or form.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just to the C.B.C.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can only ask hon. gentlemen opposite to realize that within the last two years times have changed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the very illuminating reply we have just received and the assurance that this government does not dictate to the provinces, may I ask the Minister of Finance if that means that hereafter there will no longer be telegrams sent advising the provinces what the government proposed to do in the matter of dominion-provincial relations, without consulting the provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: The questions are taking on the attributes of the debate which was suggested earlier, and might be concluded at this point unless the Minister of Finance feels it necessary to reply to the last contribution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think that ought to be answered.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am happy to answer the question asked by the hon. gentleman. The government will take advantage of the usual channels of communication in order to communicate to the provinces the good news of the more generous treatment they are receiving on the part of the present government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Finance about the more generous treatment being given to the provinces could

Inquiries of the Ministry the Prime Minister say how soon the usual channels of communication to this house will be used by the government to indicate to the house the nature of the legislation with respect to the implementing of the terms of union?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, amidst all that verbiage it is rather difficult to understand the hon. member's point-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was only seeking to repeat the words of the Minister of Finance.


John George Diefenbaker: -but making due allowance for the unnecessary and unattractive adornment may I say that the same question has been asked before. The legislation will be proceeded with some time during the present session, and as soon as possible.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Has consideration been given to inviting representatives of the municipalities to the forthcoming federal-provincial conference? I ask this because of their vital interest.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this is a meeting of provincial treasurers and provincial ministers of finance with the federal Minister of Finance. So far as I am aware no municipal representatives are associated with the delegations representing any of the provinces.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as an aged but sentimental rebel I wish to direct to the Secretary of State an appropriate question for this historic day.
In view of the report in the Ottawa Citizen of June 23 that Mr. Pearson, the architect of the present parliament buildings, died before he could complete a book giving an account of the historic features of our parliament buildings, and that there is only one man living who shares his knowledge, retired Sergeant Thomas L. Closs, formerly of the House of Commons protective staff; and in view of the importance of preserving this historical knowledge of such great interest to all Canadians, and because of the inexorable passing of time, would the minister consider taking immediate action to have Mr. Closs's knowledge of the historic features of our parliament buildings recorded for posterity?


Hon. Henri Courtemanche (Secretary of State):: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question.


Unfortunately, today being a holiday, it is impossible for me to contact the proper departmental officials to give the hon. member the information he requires but as soon as possible I shall answer his question.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he can give us any information about the report that there is to be a meeting of NATO foreign ministers before the reconvening of the conference at Geneva; and if so, can he assure the house that any such meeting will include all the NATO members and not only a few of them?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, at the present time we have no indication that there will be such a meeting. The Leader of the Opposition will have noticed that statements were made after the recent meeting between the presidents of France and Italy to the effect that these two nations wish to have a meeting of the foreign ministers of the four nations, United States, United Kingdom, France and Italy. In this connection I should like to stress that, as I said on June 22, the Canadian government attaches great importance to the consultations on this question of the Geneva conference which have been taking place in the NATO council and are still continuing. It is in these consultations that Canada is particularly interested.
(Translation):


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State if he hopes to answer my questions in the very near future?


Henri Courtemanche: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: 
BRIDGES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport or, in his absence, to the acting minister.
Could the minister indicate why all construction work has been suspended on the Champlain bridge, which is a necessity not only for the western part of the city of Montreal, but also for the people on the south shore? If there are serious reasons for this, could he state them?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment on that today, but I shall take the question as notice.
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of fhe
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice if he is now in a position to answer the questions which were addressed to the Prime Minister the other day in connection with the procedure to be followed in relation to the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act?
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am not in a position to give a definite answer, but I expect to be in a position to do so early next week. I have not yet concluded discussions with my colleagues.



CRIMINAL CODE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 30, consideration in committee of Bill No.
Criminal Code
C-58, to amend the Criminal Code-Mr. Fulton-Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
On clauses 2 and 3.
The Chairman:: We were considering
clauses 2 and 3 simultaneously. Shall these clauses carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, last night when we were dealing with these clauses it seems to me that a certain amount of misunderstanding arose as to the nature and effect of these provisions and as to why they have been included in the bill. I thought therefore a short statement from me at this time might be helpful. I should therefore like to advise the committee as to the background situation and what it is that we hope to accomplish by these provisions.
These clauses deal in an interim way with some of the many problems in relation to crimes committed on aircraft, which are the subject matter of study by international lawyers, as well as municipal lawyers.
Under the authority of the international civil aviation organization, international lawyers from many countries are grappling with the problem of working out rules of private international law which may be adopted by all the nations so there will be some country adopting jurisdiction and accepting responsibility in every case, and so there will be no overlapping of claims and unseemly clashes as between the legal systems of different nations.
This great project which has, as I have said, been tackled in an organized way by international lawyers from many countries will, apparently, take a long time to conclude. There are many problems to be solved and many possible principles that might be adopted for their solution. These are all being explored on a systematic basis and the result will, I am confident, provide all nations with a sound and proper basis for its domestic legislation.
In the meantime there are certain gaps in the provisions of our law in connection with crimes committed on aircraft which cannot be ignored. These include, first, the fact that our law does not recognize criminal law running with an aircraft over the high seas; and second, the determination of the situs of a crime so as to determine substantive law and jurisdiction is virtually impossible, so as to leave the culprit free from prosecution.
The result is that so far as our law is concerned, one man could deliberately and with malice aforethought kill another on an aircraft over the Atlantic and, on landing in

Criminal Code
Canada, boast of his deed with impunity. This is a situation which in my view cannot be allowed to continue.
The Canadian Bar Association recognized the situation and asked that appropriate steps be taken. We in the Department of Justice, after studying the matter, concluded that it could be dealt with on an interim basis in the manner set out in clause 3. We worked out a project which we referred to the criminal law section of the uniformity of laws conference. That body made some suggestions which we have adopted in clause 3. We have also made subsequent modifications as a result of our own studies.
What we are proposing in clause 3 may not solve all the problems, and it is admittedly not the fruit of the application of generally accepted principles of private international law. There is none as yet. I do think, however, that it fills in a practical way the most obvious gaps in our law without creating intolerable problems of proof and unbearable burdens of expense.
With reference to clause 2, the international lawyers to whom I have referred are also studying the legal position of the aircraft commander; that is, the whole problem of what duties and powers should be attached to his position. In the meantime, until international agreement is reached as to what those duties and powers should be, it seems clear that the law should, so far as Canada is concerned at least, confer on him the minimum status necessary to enable him to cope in a practical way with the problems he is liable to encounter while in flight. This is in line with the recommendations of the Canadian pilots' association, which had asked that the authority of a pilot should be defined.
The criminal law section of the uniformity of laws conference was consulted on this problem also, and made the recommendation that the commander of an aircraft should have the powers of a peace officer during a flight. Clause 2 is designed to implement that recommendation.
Finally, I wish to repeat for emphasis that these two proposals are put forward as interim, stop gap measures on the understanding that as soon as the nations have agreed on uniform rules to deal with these and other problems, we shall then give the most careful consideration to adopting such rules as part of the domestic law of Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee will welcome the statement the minister has made this morning, arising perhaps out of the discussion which took place last night. It is unfortunate that the minister did not see fit to make a similar statement earlier in the debate, which perhaps

would have avoided some of the apparent misunderstanding which did take place.
There are a number of questions which come to my mind, arising not only out of the statement the minister has made but also out of the two clauses which are now before the committee. In the first place, a point was made by the minister and by certain hon. members yesterday that the position here is like that of a ship, and the question which immediately comes to my mind is this. There are many ships in which the master has the powers which are given to the pilot here, but the ship is not registered in Canada. There are many ships operating between our shores and foreign lands which are not of Canadian registry, and therefore it seems to me there is a distinction to be established between a ship and an aircraft which, apparently from the definition, must be one which is registered in Canada. Therefore I ask the minister immediately what is meant by the words:
On an aircraft registered in Canada under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act-
That has not been made clear from the discussion which took place last evening and again in the statement which the minister made earlier. I welcome the statement from the minister that much of this is brought about because of recommendations or decisions made by ICAO, the international civil aviation organization. That is clearly different from the attitude taken by the minister last night.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not at all; I said that last night.


Lionel Chevrier: But the minister also said that we had been in office for 22 years and we had not done a thing with reference to this matter. In other words we were lazy in not bringing this forward; we were inept, and the like, thereby injecting a purely political note in a matter which is not at all political, but a matter which should be dealt with on its merits and I propose to deal with it on its merits now and not from any political aspect at all. After all, I think if we had been in office the first thing we would have done following a recommendation of ICAO would have been to ask a committee of this house to bring a matter of this importance into operation by way of legislation.
Then the minister says that this is an interim, stop gap measure. I invite him to define that a little more clearly. I realize there is no law which is more uncertain than that of aviation, and that is simply because of the fact that there is little or no jurisprudence on that matter in this country. That being the case, it is not surprising that there should be a number of gaps in the

Canadian law having to do with aviation. Therefore it strikes me, sir, that we should get from the minister an explanation of what is meant by:
On an aircraft registered in Canada under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act-
Also why does he make a distinction between a ship and an aircraft, because evidently the aircraft must be one registered in Canada, according to the amending clause; whereas the ship need not be one registered in Canada although the master of the vessel, to use the minister's words or paraphrasing them, will have the same powers as the pilot of the aircraft. Then perhaps he might go a little bit further into the question of the stop gap, interim measure. How long is it expected that this will be an interim measure until legislation which can apply to all countries becomes operative?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps there is a small misunderstanding between myself and the hon. member which I shall clarify now. Clauses 2 and 3 of this legislation are not something which has been recommended to us by ICAO. The fact is that ICAO is studying, through committees of lawyers, this whole problem of international aviation law, and we are participating as members in that study. But it is obvious that it will be some considerable time before these studies result in recommendations from ICAO to its member nations. We have felt that in the meantime, to plug these very substantial and far-reaching gaps, we should act to amend our own domestic law.
It was in that sense that I used the words that this was an interim or stop gap measure, because it would be our intention, as soon as we have the recommendations from ICAO, to study it and if, as I anticipate would be the case normally, we find them appropriate, then we shall recommend to parliament the adoption of such portions as are applicable to Canada and they will become then, if parliament agrees, the law of Canada and this present provision will be repealed.
Therefore the answer to the question as to what will be the duration of this stop gap or interim legislation must be, I think, at least until such time as we receive recommendations from the international organization and are in a position to recommend them to parliament in substitution of or in addition to what we are asking parliament to enact here.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a question before he passes on to another subject. If ICAO does make recommendations having to do with matters of this kind, or other matters affecting aviation generally, 66968-9-339
Criminal Code
must there not be an international agreement by all members of ICAO before it can become law?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand it could be done in either one of two ways, either by having ICAO make a recommendation to the member nations but those nations to adopt the recommendation on their own; or, alternatively, by following the procedure of trying to work out an international convention to which the member nations would subscribe; and if we subscribed then, of course, the rules of this convention would become part of our law.


Lionel Chevrier: May I have the answer to the other question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The other question was why is it that we are confining clause 2 to aircraft registered in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the meaning of the phrase, "on an aircraft registered in Canada under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act"?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think, Mr. Chairman, it is that the provisions regarding registration of aircraft in Canada are contained in these regulations under the Aeronautics Act. We wanted to describe or refer to the type of aircraft to which this clause would be applicable and we therefore made reference to the statute under which the regulations governing registration are made. The reason we have confined it to aircraft registered in Canada is really that this is an interim measure, and we felt that during this interim period we should not seek to extend Canadian law to any aircraft not registered in Canada. We felt that to make a general extension would perhaps be asserting a degree of Canadian sovereignty that does not in fact exist, whereas we are quite confident that we are on sound ground in extending this to aircraft registered in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask another question. I perhaps knew this at one time but I do not at the moment. Under the regulations passed under the Aeronautics Act is there provision for the registration of foreign aircraft in this country?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not thoroughly familiar with these matters; therefore my answers may be a little inaccurate. If I find they are I will try to correct them as I go along. I find that part 2 of the regulations in paragraph 200 provides that no person shall fly an aircraft in Canada unless it is registered under this part or under the laws of a contracting state or a state that is a party to an agreement entered into with Canada relating to interstate flying.

Criminal Code
Paragraph 204 of the regulations lays down the conditions that must be complied with before an aircraft can be registered under these regulations. It provides in the main that it cannot be registered unless it is a state aircraft or is owned exclusively by a person qualified to be the registered owner of a Canadian aircraft; that there is in force a certificate of airworthiness, and various other provisions as to the conditions that must be complied with before registration can be effected.
To answer my hon. friend's question, I think the operative words are that no person shall fly an aircraft in Canada unless it is registered under this part or under the laws of a contracting state which is a party to an agreement with Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: I understand that it is not an easy matter to bring in legislation of this kind and be familiar with all of the regulations under the Aeronautics Act. I am not going to press the minister unduly but I wonder whether he can tell me whether aircraft, the property of the government of France or of the government of the United Kingdom, flying into Dorval and thence to other places in Canada, if they have the right under an air agreement, are required to be registered in Canada under these regulations from which the minister has just read.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answer, I think, is that it is not necessary under those circumstances for the aircraft to be registered in Canada, because under the provisions of subparagraph (b) of paragraph 200 of the regulations it is not required to be registered here if it is registered under the laws of a contracting state or a state that is a party to an agreement entered into with Canada. Therefore if the government of France and the government of Canada have an agreement giving Air France flying rights in Canada and the aircraft of Air France are registered in France, they would not have to be registered in Canada under the appropriate provisions of the regulations.


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: have one point on which I should like some information from the minister. It has to do with the definition of "in flight" in clause 3. As the minister is probably well aware, Scandinavian Air lines has the privilege of landing at the Winnipeg airport only for the purpose of refueling. It has no privileges with respect to embarking or disembarking passengers. Aircraft from Sweden land at Winnipeg for refueling only and their terminal point is Los Angeles.
Two or three years ago we had a case involving a Canadian citizen who got off the 
aircraft in Winnipeg and refused to get back on in order to proceed to Los Angeles and then come back to Winnipeg. The police were called and the fact of the matter is that the passenger did go back on the airplane and complete the flight.
At that time it was a matter of interest to the members of the Manitoba bar as to what legal right the police or anyone else had to compel a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil to go back on the aircraft. As a matter of fact it was the opinion of many legal men in Manitoba at that time that there was no provision under the Criminal Code or anywhere else that could be utilized to compel a Canadian citizen to leave Canadian soil. What I am wondering is whether or not-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCleave):: would ask the hon. member how he relates -would the hon. member take his seat-that particular matter to this clause which deals with offences committed in flight. As I understand the Winnipeg case to which he has referred, it was a matter of the man being off the aircraft, and as far as the Chair knows there was no question of an offence being committed in flight.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: That is just the point, and I would ask you to bear with me for a moment. The clause defining "in flight" states that an aircraft shall be deemed to be in flight from the moment it first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off until the moment it comes to rest at the end of its flight, and when it so comes to rest that flight shall be deemed to have terminated. If the fact that the aircraft only lands at Winnipeg for refueling means that its flight is not so terminated and does not terminate until the aircraft lands in Los Angeles, then clauses 2 and 3 are applicable to the rights of the pilot of the aircraft, and clause 3 would apply to anything a person might do while the aircraft was at the city of Winnipeg.
I should like the minister's opinion with regard to what the word "terminate" means and where the end of the flight of this aircraft would be. If the termination point is Los Angeles and the end of the flight is Los Angeles then clauses 2 and 3 might cover the case I have just cited, and may I say that I think a similar case will come up again within the next few years.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the hon. member is using the word "flight" where he should be using the word "schedule". Los Angeles is the termination of the schedule, but it is my view that the wording of this clause makes it sufficiently clear that if the aircraft

comes to rest in Winnipeg then its flight, for the purposes of this clause, is terminated in Winnipeg, and that therefore an offence committed on that aircraft while in flight to Winnipeg could be dealt with under this clause. But of course that has no relation to the situation that my hon. friend referred to in introducing his remarks. There was no question of an offence having been committed on that occasion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a question I should like to ask the minister in relation to his reply. I remember this case quite well. The minister was in charge of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship at that time, as he will no doubt recall.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That case has nothing to do with the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am going to suggest to the minister that unless we have absolute assurance that the flight terminated in Winnipeg then it does have relationship to this bill, because this man was a passenger on a flight which terminated, in the ordinary sense of the word, in Los Angeles. He got off and went into the airport building.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That case had nothing to do with the clause we are now discussing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister has something to say perhaps he might rise and raise a point of order and not just mumble from his seat.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Very well; I will respond to that courteous invitation by raising the point of order that the situation in Winnipeg which is now being discussed has no relationship to this clause because there was no question there of any offence having been committed, and we are not seeking under this bill to change the laws applicable to the situation my hon. friend is discussing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might point out that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was allowed to discuss this matter, and I am relating it directly to the word "terminate" which is in the legislation itself. I believe the ordinary person-I am not a lawyer- would think a flight ending at Los Angeles terminated at Los Angeles and although the aircraft was not in the air, that while he was on that aircraft it was in flight. I do not know on what basis this man could have been detained, unless it was by order of the pilot because the pilot had asked to have him apprehended.
I should like to ask the minister whether it would be possible for the pilot of such an aircraft, when passengers are not allowed to land although they are Canadian citizens and have a right under the citizenship act to come 66968-9-339i
Criminal Code
into Canada without let or hindrance from anybody, in any circumstances to detain a Canadian citizen and prevent him from landing in Canada at one of these refueling places.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It does not seem to me to be very realistic to suggest that if an aircraft is at rest on the ground anyone would say the aircraft is in flight. It seems to me it follows automatically from the point of view of logic and common sense, as well as the ordinary definition of words, that an aircraft is not in flight if it is at rest on the ground at Winnipeg. I think my hon. friend would agree with that interpretation. The key words are found in section 5a (1) (a) of the act:
-everyone who
(a)	on an aircraft registered in Canada under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act, while the aircraft is in flight, or
(b)	on any aircraft, while the aircraft is in flight if the flight terminated in Canada-
As I say, the aircraft is certainly not in flight if the aircraft is sitting on the ground stationary at the airport at Winnipeg or anywhere else.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But would the minister look at subsection 4, the last few words?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes; the aircraft would be deemed to be in flight from the moment it first moved under its own power for the purpose of taking off until the moment it came to rest at the end of its flight. It seems to me the courts, and we drew this section accordingly, would say that if it stops at Winnipeg it would have come to rest.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But "at the end of its
flight"; those are the words that bother me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are not talking about the end of the trip for which it is scheduled; we are talking about the flight. Since we have said that when it comes to rest on the ground it shall not be deemed to be in flight, putting the two together the courts will have a clear indication of what parliament intended.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is satisfied that even if a pilot had the power we are seeking to give him here he could not arrest a Canadian citizen once the aircraft had come down at a Canadian airport, even though that air line had no authority to land passengers in Canada?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes; he could not arrest him unless there had been an offence committed by that Canadian citizen while the aircraft was in flight on its way to Winnipeg, and he could not arrest him after the flight came to an end, after the passengers got off the aircraft. It is my view that the pilot could

Criminal Code
not follow him out of the aircraft on to the airport and place him under arrest.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could he arrest him in the aircraft-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am continuing a discussion with the minister, Mr. Chairman. I was asking, could the pilot arrest him in the aircraft after the aircraft came to rest? My point is that the aircraft-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order; the hon. member for Nickel Belt got up before the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, and I gave him the floor.


Mr. Godin:: I should like to hear a continuation of the argument put forward by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, since my question of the minister is related to the same subject. I hope the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will not lose track of the argument he was putting forward to the minister. It seems to me that this section brings to light problems which could become grave. I am just wondering at this time if the minister has any opinion on the meaning of the word "rest" in subsection 4 of section 5A of the act? This subsection indicates precisely that as soon as the aircraft is in motion the flight begins and therefore the authority of the pilot to arrest a person begins, but the word "rest" as used in that section I would think is open to several interpretations.
Suppose a plane left Germany and came to rest in Canada. It could be argued that if a crime were committed at the time the aircraft touched Canadian soil but before it stopped, the crime was committed on Canadian soil and therefore the pilot had power of arrest and the case could be prosecuted in Canada.
Possibly the minister could enlighten the committee by indicating what the position would be under Canadian law if a crime were committed after a foreign plane had stopped in Winnipeg and before it got in motion again. Let us assume the plane is stopped for 20 minutes for refueling purposes, and a theft is committed in a German aircraft or whatever aircraft it may be; what is the position? Who has authority? Is it only a Canadian constable in Winnipeg who can make the arrest while the aircraft is stopped for 20 minutes? Is the pilot authorized to make the arrest while a foreign aircraft is stopped in Canada? Suppose an Italian person committed a theft while the plane was stopped for 20 minutes; could the pilot make the arrest?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am afraid there are a number of questions asked and I shall have to separate them in order to answer them. If there is a crime committed while the aircraft is at rest at a Canadian airport for a 20-minute refueling stop, the pilot has no authority to arrest because his authority to arrest is confined to the period while the aircraft is in flight, and "flight" is defined in the act. If there were a crime committed while the aircraft was at rest in Canada there would be no question of jurisdiction, because that would be a crime committed on Canadian soil. All that would happen there would be that the air line officials would get in touch with the nearest peace officer who would arrest the man. Our courts would have jurisdiction to try the case because that would be a crime committed on Canadian soil.
As I understood the hon. member, the next question he asked me was what happens if the crime is committed after the aircraft's wheels have touched the ground and while the aircraft is taxiing up to the airport. This would be covered in two ways. This would be deemed to have occurred while the aircraft is in flight because the aircraft has not come to rest. We have it in flight, according to the definition, and therefore the pilot would have authority to make the arrest, but not to try or dispose of the case; only to make the arrest of the person who committed the crime before the aircraft had come to rest. In addition, it would be my view that this crime would also be a crime committed on Canadian soil and therefore in addition to the power of arrest of the pilot there would be jurisdiction for arrest by Canadian peace officers and jurisdiction of Canadian courts to try the case.
Similarly, if a crime were committed after the aircraft doors were closed and the aircraft had commenced to taxi, prior to its take-off, that by definition would be a crime committed in flight and once again therefore the pilot of the aircraft would have the power of arrest under this section, if it is an aircraft registered in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might now put the question I attempted to put to the minister before. If an aircraft arrives at a Canadian airport and comes to rest, and before the doors are opened a Canadian citizen on that aircraft owned by an air line that is not allowed to land passengers in Canada, seeks to get out of the aircraft, has the pilot any power under this legislation to detain him?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman; because the attempt to get out of an aircraft is not an

offence of the type that we are dealing with under these two sections. This refers to indictable offences.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So that in no way could this legislation give the pilot any power to detain a Canadian citizen within the aircraft because the air line was not allowed to land passengers at that place?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answer is no, it does not.


Mr. Cresiohl:: As the minister properly
pointed out, this is a new field of law. A new form of legislation is being created, and new jurisprudence will be created. As the minister quite properly indicated, this whole field is now being explored.
I think we should pay very close attention to the definition of the terms that we are now applying. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who finds a problem in the words "termination of flight". In section (b), for example, of 5a we find the words "while the aircraft is in flight if the flight terminated in Canada". Does the minister not think that instead of the words "terminated in Canada" it might be better to use the words "if it lands in Canada"? You would thereby eliminate the difficulty with regard to "termination of flight". It is en route going from one place to another. If there is a forced landing, for example, you do not say that is the termination of flight in Canada. But if you use language such as "where the aircraft lands in Canada", we do not have to interpret as to whether it is a forced landing or a landing for refueling.
Suppose a pilot has difficulty with a passenger while they are in the air over the Atlantic and he finds that he must get rid of this passenger because he is interfering with the flight. The pilot does not have to wait until he terminates his flight. He should set down at the very first airport he comes to in Canada. He therefore has landed his aircraft. I therefore think it is necessary to have this matter cleared up.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He would therefore terminate his flight. If he put the aircraft down and it came to rest, he would terminate his flight.


Leon David Crestohl: I see no objection to using the language "if he lands in Canada" because the words "terminate his flight" do create some confusion in interpretation. I do not think the minister can give a definition here that a flight is terminated when an aircraft stops after a forced landing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, yes.


Leon David Crestohl: When the international interpretation of these terms is given I think the minister will find that a flight is terminated when the aircraft goes from one destination to
Criminal Code
its other destination. Otherwise it is still en route; it is still in flight. Otherwise I see no difficulty in just changing these words to "if the aircraft lands in Canada".
I have another question to ask the minister in connection with subsection 3 of section 5a, which reads as follows:
(3) No proceedings shall be instituted under this section where the accused is not a Canadian citizen-
And so on. I point out to the minister that we have jurisdiction over people in Canada once they are landed here. Even though they are not yet citizens of Canada we have jurisdiction over them. You may have a man travelling on a certificate of identity. He may be, for example, a stateless person and be travelling from Europe and back on a certificate of identity. He is not a citizen, but if he commits an offence in Canada we have jurisdiction over him. Why should we not have jurisdiction over him in the same way that we have jurisdiction over a Canadian citizen in flight?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have, but we have put in as a precaution that the consent of the Attorney General of Canada must be obtained. We do not say that we have no jurisdiction in section 5A. We are merely saying that it shall not be exercised without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada so questions of dual jurisdiction can be resolved. We are not abandoning jurisdiction.


Leon David Crestohl: I interpreted this legislation as seeking to take jurisdiction over someone over whom we have no jurisdiction in Canada at all. We have jurisdiction over a person who has landed. Supposing in flight there is a foreigner on that plane. We have no jurisdiction over him.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We will have with respect to offences committed on the aircraft if the flight terminates in Canada and if this bill carries.


Leon David Crestohl: Then we have to apply to the Attorney General of Canada for permission to prosecute him, because otherwise we have no jurisdiction over him. But we have jurisdiction over a person who has landed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not correct, Mr. Chairman. If this bill passes we will have jurisdiction over him with respect to trial for an offence he has committed. It is only in order to proceed to trial that you require consent of the Attorney General of Canada if he is not a Canadian citizen; but that does not alter the fact that if the bill carries we will have established jurisdiction to try him for an offence.

Criminal Code


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry? (Translation):


Mr. Eudes:: Mr. Chairman, just a word
about section 3 of Bill C-58 which adds to the Criminal Code a new section, i.e. 5a, dealing with offences committed on aircraft while in flight, and with the matter of jurisdiction regarding such an offence.
Now section 419 of the Criminal Code already deals, in the chapter on "special jurisdiction", with the jurisdiction applying in respect of an offence committed on "water between jurisdictions", or during a journey on a ship or in an aircraft while in flight.
It would seem to me more logical that the new section 5a be nearer to section 419, as both deal with closely interconnected matters. I find it hard to understand why the new section 5a is placed between sections 5 and 6.
Section 5 of the Criminal Code deals mainly with the presumed innocence of the accused and with the punishment that can be imposed on those convicted of an offence.
Section 6 of the Criminal Code, chapter 51 of the Statutes of Canada, decrees that the provisions of this legislation apply throughout Canada, with two exceptions.
It therefore seems to me that section 5a would be better placed near section 419. To my mind, this could only improve the sequence of the numerous sections of the Criminal Code, which are surely not too clear already.
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: The reasons the proposed new section is placed where we suggest, namely following the present section 5, are two in number. In the first place my hon. friend will see that the present section 5, subsection 2 of the Criminal Code states as follows:
(2) Subject to this act or any other act of the parliament of Canada, no person shall be convicted in Canada for an offence committed outside of Canada.
We thought it was logical for us to place in the code immediately following that section this new section which shall create jurisdiction to try persons for an offence committed outside of Canada. That seemed to be the logical place to put it.
The second reason is this. If my hon. friend will consider the matter I think he will realize that section 419 deals exclusively with offences committed within Canada, and it is only a question of jurisdiction in effect as between the provinces of Canada in that regard. That is with respect to offences committed within Canada itself. However, the clause we are now discussing deals with

offences committed outside of Canada. For both these reasons it seemed that the logical place to put this section would be immediately following section 5 of the code, particularly because of the provision of section 5 (2).


Mr. Aiken:: There is one point that troubles me about this definition of "in flight". Perhaps the minister can clear it up for me. In relation to the high seas, the commander or the master of a ship has always had jurisdiction to act. I understand that this is a somewhat parallel situation. What bothers me is this. What jurisdiction will the parliament of Canada have to enact criminal legislation with respect to persons who may be in flight but are still within the confines of a foreign country?
Take the example of an aircraft setting off from Paris on a non-stop flight to Canada. An offence takes place while the aircraft is still within the confines of France. Normally international space between two countries is a void which legislation must cover, and I think it can be covered; but I wonder if there has been any international treaty or understanding as a result of which jurisdiction may be conferred between one point and another even though one of those points may be within the physical confines of another country. It follows that if we attempt to enact criminal legislation applying to aircraft within a foreign country, such other country may attempt to enact similar legislation applying to Canada. This troubles me, and I should like to have the situation clarified.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The difficulty is that there is no international agreement, treaty or convention covering offences or crimes committed on aircraft while aircraft are in flight. That is why we are here taking what is admittedly unilateral action; it is because we realize that there is a gap in our law with the results I described in my statement made the first thing this morning. In order to cover the whole area, we wish to correct this omission. We say that Canada shall have jurisdiction to try a person for an offence committed on an aircraft whose flight terminates in Canada if that offence was committed while the aircraft was in flight, and by the words "in flight" are meant the point when the plane began to move under its own power for the purpose of take-off until it comes to rest.
I agree that if a person committed an offence while the aircraft was still running along the runway for the take-off, say in France, that would be an offence for which the person could be committed for trial in Canada if that aircraft landed in Canada with that person still aboard, even though the

offence was actually committed while the aircraft was in touch with the ground in another country. But it is clear that if the pilot of the aircraft, becoming aware of the fact that an offence had been committed, instead of continuing his flight and landing in Canada turned around and had the man arrested and dealt with according to the laws of France, there would be no attempt on the part of Canada to assert any jurisdiction.
We have to make this law as far-reaching as we do in this amendment because of two possibilities; first, that the pilot may not find out that the offence has been committed until he is well on his way, and then decide to continue to Canada. And if we did not take responsibility for jurisdiction there would be nobody able to arrest or try the person concerned when the aircraft landed; he would be able to walk off scot free. That is one reason we have made the law extend so far back as the moment the aircraft begins to be in flight.
The other difficulty is the problem of knowing or establishing exactly where an offence takes place. If it is committed over the Atlantic, or at any time in flight, who is to say whether in fact the aircraft had passed the boundaries of France, or was perhaps crossing over Spain, or whether it had passed the coast of France and was crossing over open sea? For these reasons we extended our jurisdiction right back to the point where the aircraft commenced to move under its own power for the purpose of take-off. The important thing to remember is that if the aircraft returns to the point from which it took off and if the man is arrested and there is a law under which he can be dealt with, Canada would not quarrel with the right of the foreign country to bring him to trial. But we have to take some action along the lines I have indicated.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have no quarrel with this effort to take unilateral action, because I think in many cases it is necessary to take unilateral action. My only concern with regard to this matter is whether it may become a source of international difficulty if we are to avoid actually determining where an offence took place. I admit that it is difficult, especially if an offence was not discovered until the aircraft was about to land, to determine whether at the time in question the aircraft was over, say, France or over the high seas. What I am worried about is whether there may be consequences to Canadian citizens from this effort to invade the confines of foreign countries with our criminal legislation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I have to admit that there may be complications of the nature described by my hon. friend, but we think the
Criminal Code
risk of these difficulties is worth while taking. First, we do not think it is a very great risk and, second, we think it is worth while taking in order to block this serious gap. Moreover, I would point out that we have taken steps to minimize the danger of difficulties by the provision made in clause 5a (3), which says:
No proceedings shall be instituted under this section where the accused is not a Canadian citizen without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Thus if a situation arises where a foreign country wishes to exercise jurisdiction over an offence, and has a law under which the person can be tried, and the person concerned is a citizen of that country, then we can take steps to return him to his own country for the purpose of having his case disposed of there.


Mr. Spencer:: I do not wish to delay the passage of this legislation but I do think that when enacted it should be clear and free from doubt. I think there is a good deal to be said for the views expressed by some of the hon. members who have addressed themselves to this clause. As I understand it, the intention is to give the courts of Canada jurisdiction in the case of aircraft which are not registered in Canada under the Aeronautics Act where an offence is committed on such aircraft while in flight, those flights terminating in Canada.
Now if we wish to interpret the words "flight terminated in Canada" I think we should all agree at once that if a flight is not scheduled to terminate in Canada it would not come within the meaning of that clause; because if we look at the schedules of air line flights we will see that the flights are numbered and that flight No. so and so will originate at a certain place and end at a certain place. In between those two places there may be stops. But when you board a plane numbered, say, flight 46, that flight rims from point A to point C, stopping at stop point B, and in my opinion that flight does not end until the plane reaches point C.
As I understood the minister he was of the opinion that the flight was considered to be terminated when the aircraft came to rest, whether at the end of the scheduled flight or not. The intention of subsection 4 seems to be to put an interpretation upon the words "termination of flight" which one might not gather from the ordinary use of those words, and when we come to read this provision we find that the aircraft is in flight from the time it first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off until the moment it comes to rest.
I point out that what I think leads to doubt and ambiguity is the addition of the words "at the end of its flight". Why not

Criminal Code
stop after the word "rest"? If we want to make it clear then surely the flight is deemed to terminate when the plane comes to rest. Why complicate it by adding the words "at the end of its flight"? This again raises the question, what is the end of the flight? I believe we create ambiguity in this way. I suggest it would be clear if the words "at the end of its flight" were deleted. If it were to read "-the moment it comes to rest and when it so comes to rest that flight shall be deemed to have terminated" it would be clearer although I do not think the flight would actually have terminated under the ordinary interpretation of the word "flight".


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Essex West has hit the nail on the head, and I should like to support what he has said. Although the minister interprets this in his own way it might be interpreted in another way by the courts. I believe the words "at the end of its flight" should be deleted to remove the ambiguity.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think there is unnecessary concern over these words but we have been considering this since the point was raised, and as it stands at the moment I am inclined to agree that although the meaning would not be clearer it would be no less clear if the words "at the end of its flight" were deleted so the subclause would then read:
For purposes of this section and paragraph (30) of section 2 an aircraft shall be deemed in flight from the moment the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off until the moment it comes to rest and when it so comes to rest that flight shall be deemed to have terminated.
If the committee would give me a moment I will prepare an amendment accordingly and ask one of my colleagues to move it.


Leon David Crestohl: Would the minister look at paragraph (b) of section 5a where it speaks about the termination of the flight and cover that as well? I was under the impression that when we speak about having jurisdiction we should have jurisdiction over all aircraft that land in Canada. As I said before, there may be a forced landing in Canada. As long as a plane lands here and an offence has been committed I think we should have jurisdiction.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have now prepared an amendment which I would ask my colleague the Solicitor General to read.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That subsection 4 of section 5a, as contained in clause 3 of the bill, be amended by deleting the words "at the end of its flight" where they occur in lines 27 and 28 on page 2.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Chairman, I fail to appreciate what we would accomplish by this amendment, because the doubt that will be raised in the judge's mind is based on the fact that the common usage of the word "flight" means something other than a lap in a schedule. We speak of a non-stop flight, a two-stop flight, and a refuelling stop only flight. Of what assistance will this amendment be to a judge who wants to know whether the flight has been terminated if he feels that the flight, as the word is interpreted by common usage, means the flight to Los Angeles, for example? The change we are making gives no guidance to the judge or magistrate as to whether the coming to rest of the aircraft indicates the end of the flight. If as suggested by other hon. members the flight from Germany to Los Angeles is the complete flight, the judge would not consider that the terms of this clause specifically state that the flight has been completed until the airplane has arrived at Los Angeles.
Hon. members may say there is no problem arising out of the use of the word "rest". I say there may be a dispute about the significance of that word in relation to the landing of an aircraft, and especially in reference to a trans-Atlantic flight. When does the airplane actually come to rest? That could be solved by referring to an aircraft coming to a complete stop in Canada. That would solve the problem. We would still use approximately the same words; and if common usage indicates that the end of a flight, as that phrase is used by people who are involved in preparing advertisements and talking about aviation transportation, refers to the aircraft arriving at Los Angeles the meaning would be clear. There is no point in saying that we will strike out the words "at the end of its flight" and leave in the reference to the plane coming to rest. The judge might state that he would not consider that the flight had terminated until the plane arrived in Los Angeles, and that he would attach no significance to a plane coming to rest at a refueling stop in Winnipeg.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think I can assure the hon. member that the courts will not interpret the Criminal Code by reference to advertising slogans. They will give the words, as the interpretation rules lay down, the ordinary accepted meaning of those words unless there is something in the statute which indicates clearly that the words do not have their ordinary meaning. Therefore I can assure my hon. friends that the judges will look first at subsection 1 of proposed section 5A and they will see that it seeks to establish jurisdiction over everyone who on an aircraft registered in Canada, while the aircraft is in

flight, or on any aircraft while the aircraft is in flight if the flight terminated in Canada, commits an offence. Then they will come down to subclause 4 and say, "Now, we find that 'in flight' is defined". How is it defined? ft is defined as follows:
For purposes of this section and paragraph (30) of section 2 an aircraft shall be deemed in flight from the moment the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off until the moment it comes to rest-
Now, how anything could be clearer than that I do not know. "Comes to rest" has the ordinary meaning of "stops". An aircraft moving is not at rest; therefore the flight is not terminated until the aircraft comes to rest. And "being in flight" is defined as covering the period from the time the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off until it comes to rest. I see no difficulty with these words at all. I am quite certain that I am on safe ground in assuring my hon. friend that the courts will have no difficulty with these words.


Osias.-J. Godin: Let us take this example. A plane from Mexico comes to Canada on a scheduled flight. The plane has to fly over Kinross, Michigan, and as it passes near Detroit a crime is committed. It stops for fueling in Kinross and it lands at Montreal or at some other Canadian spot. Where is the jurisdiction granted by this code? Let us say that both the accused and the person aggrieved are Canadians and they would like to benefit from this amendment to the Criminal Code; where are the rights of the parties?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The crime is clearly committed in the United States and the United States has jurisdiction. In those circumstances we are not trying to assert that Canada has jurisdiction; we are not making that attempt at all.


Osias.-J. Godin: The United States may not have such a law and they may not have jurisdiction to try the case at Kinross, but still the crime would have been committed and certainly it is the kind of thing that should be covered.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Surely my hon. friend knows that each state has jurisdiction to try persons for crimes committed within its territorial limits. The hon. gentleman has just pointed out to me an example of a crime clearly committed within the United States. The plane stops in the United States after the crime has been committed. We would not attempt to assert any jurisdiction.


Mr. Carter:: The use of the word "first" there complicates things because it does not
Criminal Code
describe what actually happens when a plane takes off. A plane will be drawn up near the airport. It will take on its passengers and then it will move. That is the time it first moves. It will move down the runway and come to rest and wait for orders to take off. From the time it first moves to the time it comes to rest is when it is moving from the passenger terminal down to the runway in preparation for take-off. That is the point. According to this definition-


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is exactly what we intend.


Chesley William Carter: Then it would apply only to what happens from the time it first moves, but it is still on the ground from the time it first moves from the terminal down to the runway.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct, and that is what we intended to cover.


Chesley William Carter: Not when it is in the air?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, yes, a crime committed while in the air.


Chesley William Carter: The flight is terminated. The plane is still on the ground. If you are going to insist on keeping the word "first", then it will apply while the plane is on the ground.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point my hon. friend raises would not have been of importance had we not agreed to take out the words "at the end of its flight". I think that is why we put those words in; therefore we had drafted better than we realized when we agreed to take them out.


Lionel Chevrier: You had better put them back in.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suggest that this clause stand until we can reconsider it to see if we find any better or clearer drafting, or if there is any need to take out those words, and I will report back to the house later on.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Clauses 2 and 3 will stand.
On clause 4-Bail.


Mr. Woolliams:: I should like to speak on clause 4 because I believe that freedom and liberty are the most important civil rights in our democratic way of life. I thank the minister for bringing in this amendment. I would like to give an illustration of why I think this new clause should be added to the Criminal Code. As the minister knows, there is a distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act. Last fall I had occasion to have some correspondence with the minister about some farmers in Saskatchewan who were charged under the Saskatchewan liquor act. They were arrested on

Criminal Code
Saturday and refused bail until Monday, on the ground that the R.C.M.P. and the magistrate there held that it was illegal to grant bail on Sunday. Those particular farmers were charged with an offence and found guilty by the magistrate. When the case was taken to the district court to be tried de novo they were acquitted.
There was some ambiguity as to whether bail could be granted in Canada on Sunday. The court of appeal of Nova Scotia has held that since you can arrest a person on Sunday you can lay a charge on Sunday, you can grant a warrant for an arrest on Sunday, and of course the party arrested could be granted bail.
I want once again to thank the minister for bringing in this amendment because now it is certain; we are sure that bail can be granted on Sunday in Canada to those people who may be arrested on Saturday, so they will not be held over until the next Monday.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 11-Obscene.
Lionel Chevrier: One o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the acting leader of the house what the business will be for Thursday, Friday and Saturday. I wonder whether he can indicate what it will be on Monday as well?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am afraid I am not in a position to do that. My understanding is that the business for Thursday will be estimates, as the house leader indicated.


Lionel Chevrier: Defence and defence production?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I believe that is correct. That still stands, and if there is any change I will see that the hon. gentleman is notified immediately. I am not aware of any change having been made. If, for instance, we are to take legislation tomorrow instead of estimates I will notify my hon. friend and the C.C.F. party at once. I do not think there is any change in that indication.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister cannot give any indication of the business for Monday?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry, no.


[Stage Direction]
At one o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 2, 1959