1959-06-09

BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. E. Halpenny (London) presented the first report of the special committee on broadcasting, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister table in the house a copy of the judgment, No. 151177, of Mr. Justice Thorson in the Drew case?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I shall secure a copy. There is certainly no reason why it should not be tabled.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask another question arising out of the one I have already asked. Will the Prime Minister also table the transcript of the evidence heard in this particular case?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the transcript of the evidence is naturally available to anyone who desires to secure it and will pay the necessary fee. I see no reason-this, of course, is always subject to reconsideration -why that evidence should be tabled. If the hon. gentleman, being a learned member of the bar, would simply make the necessary application and pay the proper fee, no doubt he would be able to secure a copy of the proceedings.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another question to the Prime Minister. As a result of our examination on this side of the house of the judgment of Mr. Justice Thorson and, in particular, in view of the fact that such further examination of the judgment and the Prime Minister's statements on the matter have not removed our apprehensions in this case, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he will provide an
opportunity for a parliamentary examination in order to elicit the facts and clear up contradictions.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of removing contradictions. The committees are set up in respect of matters affecting the privileges of parliament. If the hon. gentleman in the ordinary course desires such an investigation then he will make the necessary charge, and when the charge is made action will be taken in accordance with the principles that at all times have been applicable to parliamentary procedure.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Did the minister make a formal submission to treasury board in connection with the valuation of Mr. Clare?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Transpori):: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I believe all the pertinent evidence in this case was dealt with very effectively by the presiding judge. As I said yesterday, I feel sure that the hon. member for Laurier, being a distinguished barrister, would not ask me to comment on the findings of the court.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This question has nothing to do with the findings of the court. It is a simple question as to whether or not the minister did make a submission to treasury board.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, treasury board was made aware of the findings of Mr. Clare.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I follow up the question I asked of the Minister of Transport in which he replied that the findings of the appraiser were made known to the treasury board. May I ask if those findings were made known to the treasury board notwithstanding the recommendation of the minister's own officers that the valuations were too high?


George Harris Hees: Those findings were examined by the treasury board staff, Mr. Speaker, and the opinion of the members of the treasury board staff was that the valuations could not be accepted.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask one further question of the minister. Did the minister agree that his department would be bound by the

Inquiries of the Ministry valuations of Mr. Clare, as asserted by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett)?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well, having been minister of this department for some eight years, that no minister can be bound by any valuations that are not passed by treasury board.


Lionel Chevrier: That was not the question. I am quite aware of the circumstances-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member is conducting a cross-examination.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister receive a telegram from Mr. William H. Marsh, president of district 26, united mine workers of America, Glace Bay, to the effect that 200 workmen are presently without income in the district, and their unemployment insurance benefits having expired, immediate financial assistance is urgently required? Would the Prime Minister say whether the government is considering taking any action that would be of assistance to these unemployed workers?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I speak from recollection and it is difficult, because of the number of telegrams that come to me, to remember all the details. I speak subject to correction, but my recollection is that a telegram to that effect was received. Following its receipt the necessary consideration will be given to the telegram.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask if any consideration has been given to an extension of benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act that would cover these unemployed workmen.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to forward me a copy of the telegram which he received, which indicates that a telegram in the words used was sent to me on June 8. That was yesterday, and the hon. gentleman will understand that consideration of a matter such as was communicated by telegram yesterday afternoon would not have been possible as yet.
[Mr. Chevrier.l



SUMMER EMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beauce asked me a question on June 5, the translation of which is as follows:
In view of the fact that many Canadian students have to quit college-
And so on.
-I wonder whether the right hon. Prime Minister could assure the house that Canadian students will be given priority over the many foreign students who, according to that Canadian Press dispatch from London-
Which he had already quoted.
-are already here or are expected to be here this summer.
The press report in question indicates that some 500 students intend to come forward to Canada and the United States with a view to taking summer employment. A report has just been received from the Canadian immigration office in London establishing that the commonwealth migration council plans for only 70 of these students to come to Canada. In the past there has been a summer exchange of students between Canada and the United Kingdom. The body that is in charge of this matter has been advised that only those students can come forward who are assured of employment in advance. While it is not proposed to do away completely with the exchange of students, it has been pointed out that only those may come who have available summer employment in advance of their arrival here.
(Translation):



TRADE AND COMMERCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Boivin (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should have liked to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but in his absence, I shall address it to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. On Saturday, June 6, La Presse published a picture showing that literature handed out at the Trade and Commerce Department stand, at the International Trade Fair being held in the Show Mart in Montreal, is exclusively in English. Does the minister propose to have that literature printed in both French and English, as was done by other countries taking part in the fair?

(Text):


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Minister without Portfolio):: I shall take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works, notice of which has been given. Has any change been made recently in the board of the St. John's housing authority? If not, is there any in contemplation?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, as the house will
probably remember there was some difficulty a few weeks ago in connection with the St. John's housing authority. Objection had been raised by the federal government that it had no representation on that authority. The membership consisted of seven persons. About two weeks ago three of them resigned, and negotiations have been going on since that time between the two governments. Yesterday I had a very friendly talk with Premier Smallwood and recommended to him three very responsible citizens of St. John's for appointment to the St. John's housing authority. He has promised me that they will be appointed within the next day or two. Appointments are made by provincial order in council.
I believe it will now be possible for the housing authority to carry on with the full co-operation of both governments, and I would like to thank both hon. members from St. John's and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) for helping to bring about this result.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Is it intended to provide Professor Sinclair with any assistance in order to enable him to report on his study of commercial fishing licensing on the west coast before the end of this year?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. Professor Sinclair, of the University of Manitoba, has been re-engaged for the summer months in order to complete his work on the study of commercial fishing licensing on the west coast. We have provided
Inquiries of the Ministry additional clerical assistance in the Vancouver area office to process the statistical information so that Professor Sinclair's work, we hope, will be completed and available for study by officials of my department later this year.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Boivin: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I will address my question to him in French.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister aware that all printed matter at the Canadian Air Force stand, at the International Trade Fair held at the Show Mart in Montreal, is in English only and that the clerk in charge at the stand is not bilingual? Is it the minister's intention to correct this situation by making that literature available in both French and English, and by appointing a bilingual person who could answer visitors questions in French and in English?
(Text):


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I shall be very pleased to look into that question and see what can be done.



BOMARC MISSILE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of National Defence not wish to correct Hansard, which reports him as saying yesterday that the Bomarc will be ready in 1961, when he actually stated that it would be ready by the end of 1961?


George Randolph Pearkes: I have always said that the expected date by which the Bomarc will be ready is the end of 1961.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister note that at page 4414 of Hansard he is reported as saying, "My understanding is that it will be in 1961"?


An hon. Member:: What is the difference?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Quite a difference.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
[Stage Direction]
Dominion-Provincial Relations
Marcel Boivin: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture as a result of the visit of the delegation of Canadian broiler producers who came to Ottawa. Since no action has been taken on their request, and since broiler prices continue to drop, is it the intention of the Department of Agriculture to do something to promote the consumption of broilers in this country?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the consumption of broilers is really very high. It has increased quite materially during the last four or five years. I know of no action which the Department of Agriculture can take to increase what is already a very high rate of consumption of broiler chickens.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether his attention has been drawn to an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of last Thursday entitled "Manitoba's Old Crow", which refers to the fact that customs officers at a port south of Boissevain, Manitoba-incidentally, that is the right way to pronounce it-are obliged for financial reasons to send their children to school in North Dakota. If the situation is as represented, would the minister consider trying to do something to have it corrected?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: My attention has been drawn to the article in question. One opinion is that the situation is due to a regulation laid down by treasury board when the great friend of the hon. member who just asked the question, Mr. John Deutsch, was secretary of the treasury board and insisted on that procedure being carried out.
I have asked my officers to review the matter. As a matter of fact I was discussing it with the deputy minister this morning. We will give the matter the most careful consideration and will advise the hon. member as to whatever steps may be taken to deal with it. It does appear rather strange that children of Canadian customs officers should have to stand and swear allegiance to the United States flag.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL TAX-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS ACT FURTHER EXTENSION OF INCOME TAX RATE

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: the third reading of Bill No.

C-41, to amend the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the minister a question. Can he tell us whether or not it is the intention of other premiers to come to the conference on July 6, that is other than the premier of Quebec, and can he tell us whether or not before the end of this year there will be called a conference of the two senior levels of government in the matter of fiscal relations?


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house if the hon. minister answers this question-no, it is not a substantive motion.
(Translation):


Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to thank the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Dorion) for being here today, because I advised him of my intention to answer certain statements he made in the house on second reading of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have found the hon. member for Bellechasse quite different from what he had shown himself to be before coming to this house. It seems that the hon. member had been entrusted with the task of answering, on behalf of the Quebec Conservatives, the excellent speech of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). Well, Mr. Speaker, as I shall presently explain, the hon. member for Bellechasse has in no way taken up the challenge issued by the hon. member for Laurier to the Conservative members from the province of Quebec.
To the great surprise of all those who heard him, the hon. member for Bellechasse declared himself in favour of this bill and, together with several of his fellow-members, he voted for the passing of the bill on second reading. Moreover, I am certain-because he told me so-that the hon. member will vote in favour of the bill on third reading.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to recall in this house that, in order to mark time, and probably also to direct the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) to himself, the hon. member of Bellechasse thought it preferable to put aside the bill then under review and to embark upon a lengthy statement on the Plagiaries of Thunder. Hearing the hon. member made me think of a student of rhetoric who wants to show off before his teacher in order to get good marks. Well, Mr. Speaker, I shall leave my friend, the hon. member for Bellechasse to his Plagiaries of Thunder, and put him in the presence of facts so as to prove to the house how often he can change his mind and also change his colour, like a chameleon, according to the place where he happens to be.

During the last election campaign, I noted several statements by the hon. member for Bellechasse which indicated to what extent that man could change his mind. When he wanted to become a member of parliament, he was saying one thing; but now that he wants to become minister, he says quite another thing.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member for Bellechasse that if, during the last election campaign, he had expressed the same opinions concerning fiscal arrangements which he did the other day in this house, he would never have been elected, no more than he could hope to become minister if he expressed in the house opinions similar to those he did express in Bellechasse.
Alas! Mr. Speaker, the poor taxpayer! (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think before the hon. member pursues these election issues further I should remind him and the house that this is the third reading of Bill C-41, which has one clause only, to provide for the continuation of a provision with respect to income tax in federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. On third reading the debate is not on the principle of the bill; the debate is on the bill itself as it is presented to the house for final approval.
That is a very different matter from debate on second reading. What the hon. member is saying would perhaps have been appropriate on second reading; in fact I have no doubt it would have been, but on third reading I feel that hon. members should observe the precedents. I refer hon. members to Beau-chesne's fourth edition, citation 418, which states:
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
In other words, only what is contained in the bill is before the house on third reading. Supplementing that, May's sixteenth edition at page 421 states that generally no matter ought to be raised in debate on a question which would be irrelevant if moved as an amendment.
I think it has been the practice of this house to confine the debate on third reading strictly to the contents of the bill itself, and I would ask the hon. member to bear that in mind. If anyone disagrees with my interpretation I would be glad to hear him now, so we shall know what are the limits of this debate.
(Translation):


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that the hon. member
Dominion-Provincial Relations for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) has the right to reply to the speech made the other day by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion). This is just what the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Na-pierville is doing and I do not see why he should be prevented from doing so.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: 1 am sorry; I cannot accept that proposition at this time. As 1 said before, and as the hon. member for Essex East will recall, it would have been relevant in the course of debate on second reading, but one cannot expect to reply at this stage to something which was said in committee or on second reading or at the resolution stage, unless it is relevant at this stage and will stand on its own feet.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, in a few moments we shall be called upon to vote the third reading of Bill C-41 to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act and to allow the deduction of 13 per cent. Now, I should like to tell the house that the hon. member for Bellechasse, when he was visiting his constituency-


Some hon. Members:: Order! order!


Yvon Dupuis: -and precisely on the matter of provincial autonomy and fiscal arrangements now being considered, the hon. member for Bellechasse, as I say, had promised something altogether different from what he said in the house the other day.


Mr. Dorion:: My remarks were misreported to you by Mr. Lamontagne.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member will take note of what I said previously. The autonomy of the provinces is not involved in this bill. This bill is purely an arrangement for the extension of a specific provision of the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Agreements Act, and I would ask the hon. member to confine himself to that subject.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word on behalf of the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville. As I see it, citation 418 deals in effect, as Your Honour has said, with the principle of the bill on third reading, and the principle of the bill concerns not only section 12, which is now before the house, but also concerns the other sections. It is my submission that the hon. member in dealing with the general aspects of the federal-provincial tax-sharing agreements legislation has the right to put on Hansard certain statements made by those who are members of this house.

Dominion-Provincial Relations


Mr. Speaker:: I can only accept the hon. member's submission in so far as those statements are relevant to the clause of the bill. To my mind the debate on the principle of the bill on second reading is a broad debate, and there was no restriction at that time covering the whole range of federal-provincial arrangements, conferences and all those matters. But when we come to third reading the house has disposed of the principle of the bill. It has disposed of the amendments, if any, in committee, and it has settled on one clause, which is all that is before the house now. It is only in so far as it is necessary to go outside the bill to explain what the continuation of this section involves that such extraneous matters would be relevant. To my mind that is not a very wide field and I hope hon. members will accept that view and keep their attention directed to the bill as it has been accepted in committee.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the hon. member can do that, sir, but the point is that in dealing with the clause as it is now before the house the member is entitled to more than the ordinary latitude because of the fact that the tax-sharing agreement embraces an over-all formula. I think in so far as the formula is concerned, which formula has been adopted by the Department of Finance and the government and is being extended in this case, the member could discuss that in relation to what another member has said about the particular federal-provincial agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: I would be glad to hear any other hon. member, but I have not accepted what the hon. member for Laurier has said because this amendment continues a 13 per cent rate instead of a 10 per cent rate. The whole of the tax agreement of 1956 is not in issue in any way in this bill; the only thing which is in issue as I conceive it is whether or not the rate of allowance with respect to income tax shall be 13 per cent or 10 per cent. I may be wrong about that, and if I am I shall be glad to be so shown; but unless I am convinced to the contrary it seems to me that there is only this pretty narrow range for debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, with respect, it is quite clear that the position advanced by the hon. member for Laurier is quite untenable and entirely at variance with the citation you quoted from Beauchesne. The effect of this very short bill is simply to change one figure in the main act, namely the figure 10


to the figure 13, with respect to the current fiscal year. That is what it does and that is all it does.
Mr. Speaker, there is no occasion whatever for hon. members opposite to complain that they did not have ample latitude. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) spoke in this house in the debate on second reading on June 3. The hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) could have spoken if he had chosen. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) followed the member for Bellechasse on that occasion and had ample opportunity to discuss what was said by the hon. member for Bellechasse. Then the house moved on from that stage, having approved the principle of the bill by unanimous vote on June 4.
That matter, I take it, is conclusively settled by the vote of the house. There was a vote of 156 to 0; therefore, Mr. Speaker, if there ever was a case where the rule set forth in Beauchesne which you quoted, clearly applies it is surely in this situation. With great respect I submit the hon. member must confine himself to the terms of the bill now under debate.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I distinctly remember, as we all do, that in 1956, when the act that is being amended was introduced, Conservative members were fully against the proposal. Of course, the figure was not 13 per cent then, but 10 per cent. However, they were against it. Therefore, when the hon. member for Bellechasse, together with his colleagues from Quebec, attempt to show that this bill is quite in order, and when they support it, after objecting so strenuously to its principle, I say, Mr. Speaker, that we have here an about-face that must necessarily be brought to the attention of the people.
Mr. Speaker, we are now considering an act which, in 1956, was recorded in our statutes under No. 4-5 Elizabeth II, chapter 29. Now, Mr. Speaker, that act, which was approved on January 31, 1956, was taken up in this house by our hon. friends, many of whom are still with us today.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker,-


Yvon Dupuis: And, Mr. Speaker,-
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is quite clear that the hon. member is not adhering to the ruling you have given. He is just going right ahead with the same speech he was making when you rose to set forth the rule.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I urge that the hon. member be required to adhere to the clear rule which you have quoted and laid down.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall follow the hon. member's discourse with that consideration in mind. So far, however, it does not seem to me that he has strayed. I hope he understands that I will be critical and will ask him to desist if he goes beyond the proper scope of the discussion of this bill and its setting in connection with the other act of 1956. It does not involve the other sections of that act; it involves only what is contained in this amending bill.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for your decision, which I think is completely fair and to the point.
Mr. Speaker, see how that little "Rebecca" from the Roberval constituency (Mr. Tremblay) is enjoying himself. It is so funny!
Mr. Speaker, as proof of what I was just saying, let me show you what were the feelings of our hon. friends who are still in this house today with regard to the action taken by the St. Laurent government, which was the same action as is being taken today by the present government.
The hon. member, who is now the Solicitor General of Canada, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), speaking on this act, namely Chapter 29, 4-5 Elizabeth II of the statutes, made the following statement on July 16, 1956, as recorded on page 6032 of Hansard; he came out against that very act for which he will be voting today. Now, however, the government is of another colour and here is what he said:
-I feel that, while the federal proposals acknowledge for the first time that the provinces have a certain right to direct taxation, that acknowledgment is still utterly inadequate, for the federal government should not dry up the source of that taxation in order to pile up unjustified surpluses.


Mr. Balcer:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Dupuis: As for the man who is now looking at me and says "hear, hear", instead of being ashamed as he should, he said that constitutional rights arising out of confederation were no more respected than before by that attitude of the government.


Léon Balcer: The attitude of the Liberal
government.


Yvon Dupuis: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do say that the Solicitor General, at the present time-
Dominion-Provincial Relations
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid I cannot agree with the course the hon. member is following. The constitutional right is not involved in this bill at this time. No constitutional issue arises, as far as I can see, in the choice which the house has before it between a 10 per cent allowance and a 13 per cent allowance with respect to the federal income tax.


John Whitney Pickersgill: With respect, Mr. Speaker, speaking on the point of order, may I say this. Surely if 10 per cent is unconstitutional changing it to 13 per cent would not make it constitutional, and that is the point which the hon. gentleman is arguing.


Mr. Speaker:: That is precisely why I say the constitutional issue is not involved. Changing it from 10 per cent to 13 per cent does not change any constitutional aspect. It is a matter of mathematics. The debate is a very narrow one, and I ask the hon. members to recognize that fact and deal with it accordingly.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that, in July 1956, on the third reading of the bill, the debate had been much wider. I see, for instance, that certain members who are trying to prevent me from talking today, were much more... I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that, on third reading of the bill, the hon. member for St. Pauls (Mr. Michener), had himself dealt with that bill, and I could read the quite general statements that he made and which gave the debate more latitude than the house is prepared to allow today.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member to whom reference is made by the hon. member who has the floor was out of order at the time. I shall be glad to take note of the reference if the hon. member will give it to me again.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: The following is from page 6420 of Hansard of 1956:


Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Speaker,- (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not necessary for the hon. member to read that. I have indicated my view about the scope of this debate. I know that debates often go beyond what the rules allow. The authority I have cited seems to me to be conclusive. I will make a note of the citation to which the hon. member refers and will have a look at it, but in the meantime I wish he would proceed with his speech and try to keep within the limits I have set.

Dominion-Provincial Relations (Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, may I go on. I will definitely not talk about hockey, but I must absolutely talk about this bill. I understand that my Conservative friends from the province of Quebec would prefer that I do not talk about it.


Some hon. Members:: No, no. We like it.


An hon. Member:: But your constituents will not like it.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friends do so enjoy listening to me, may I have, with the unanimous consent of the house, all the necessary liberty to talk about the bill-if they are having such a good time. May I have the unanimous consent of the house?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I have asked- (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the
question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member resuming his seat?


Yvon Dupuis: I ask that unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, be given to afford me an opportunity of making my speech in order to answer the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion).


Some hon. Members:: No.


Yvon Dupuis: My hon. friends from the
province of Quebec told me they would be greatly interested in listening to what I have to say. Therefore with the unanimous consent of the house I should like to proceed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no objection to asking the house, but from what I have heard already I think I know what the answer will be. Does the house wish to relax the rule in favour of the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: No.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I realize that those who say they want to listen to me are not very sincere. Mr. Speaker, the house is considering today a section of 4-5 Elizabeth II, Chapter 29, whose effect will be to extend for a further year the rate of 13 per cent which is deductible from federal income tax in the provinces having an income tax of their own.
Mr. Speaker, in 1956 we had the same law which is now under review and I cannot but remind the hon. members who are now in favour of this law that they then voted against it on second and third readings. And

remind them I must, in order to prove my assertion that while these hon. gentlemen found fault with this law when they were sitting on this side because it had been introduced by a Liberal government, they now favour this same law which the Conservative government now considers excellent.
Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the section increasing personal income tax deductions to 13 per cent, I remembered the other day that my hon. friends proclaimed throughout the province and throughout the country that this provision was unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of confederation. Today, Mr. Speaker, I must rise and tell the house that this act was constitutional in 1956, is still so today, and that if anything has changed, it is the stand of my hon. friends opposite who have abused the good faith of the public. When I think that in a moment the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) will vote for this bill, I say that, if he had promised the people-


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member should not be allowed to make a speech like this on third reading.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order? Would he state his point? (Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would do well to keep to the discussion on third reading and not make a speech which might be appropriate on second reading.


Yvon Dupuis: I am not making a speech on second reading, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I note, Mr. Speaker, that the arguments the hon. member is advancing are not relevant to the remarks just made by Your Honour. This makes me think of the mountain which gave birth to a mouse, i.e. a mouse of a speech.


Some hon. Members:: That is not a point of order.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I have been following the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville (Mr. Dupuis) in what he has just been saying and when the point of order was taken what he was saying was not irrelevant.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: 
Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid the hon. member is getting back to his original fault. He assured me that he was reading a quotation which related to the subject under discussion, but I am afraid it is not related and unless he can confine himself to the subject under debate I shall have to ask him to desist. (Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your good advice. Yet, the hon. member for Bellechasse did not think he was out of order in referring to Mr. Duplessis' act, introduced in 1953-54, which has no relation at all to this bill. I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that you gave the hon. member for Bellechasse full latitude to refer to that point.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, I believe you have sufficiently indicated to the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville that he is out of order-


Lionel Chevrier: Why are you rising on a point of order?


Louis Fortin: -but he keeps coming back to it, and he is now indicting, in the house, the hon. member for Bellechasse. We want to hear him discuss the bill; and if he wants to limit his remarks to the bill, he should refrain from indulging in personalities, because in doing so he goes against the Speaker's ruling.


Yvon Dupuis: I must point out to my hon. friend that I am not addressing myself to the hon. members who claim that Quebec is a province like other provinces but to those who say that it is unlike other provinces. I fail to see why the hon. member should feel slighted. I cannot see how it can be said that
Dominion-Provincial Relations I am taking a particular member to task, when I am criticizing, in a particular member, the attitude of a whole group which, in the last federal election, abused the good faith of the voters.
Mr. Speaker, in considering this bill, we should take care to respect provincial rights; however, those rights were just as much respected when the original bill was introduced under a Liberal government. Some rights are unchanged and unchangeable, undisputed and undisputable, unviolated and inviolable, uncontested and incontestable; the Liberal government has always respected those rights and today, the Conservative government is serving proof to the people that our legislation was good, because they are bringing it back unchanged before the public. Then, always referring to the section before us, I shall remind the hon. member for Bellechasse that he quoted certain words spoken by a well-known personality. As a matter of fact, with regard to that precise matter, that is what the Hon. Jean Lesage said on Sunday, March 16, 1958, at L'lslet:


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Yvon Dupuis: Wait a moment, you are suffering and you shall suffer, just wait. This is what Mr. Lesage said:
I say to you, whatever our opponents may promise, and whatever their criticism may be, the Conservative government will bring no basic change in the system of subsidies and equalization payments, if it is returned to power.
You can see today how right Mr. Lesage was at that time.
Mr. Speaker, since I am not allowed to answer the hon. member for Bellechasse as I would have liked to, I must limit my remarks. However, I am anxious to see those
members rise, especially the ineffable Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) who is looking at me with his artless grin; I am quite anxious to see the Solicitor General rise with his Conservative friends and vote today in favour of a Liberal legislation which he condemned in the past.
And here is my last word, which could always be of some use to my Conservative friends from the province of Quebec: "Autonomy, if you had not existed, we would have had to invent you to serve the purposes of these gentlemen."


An hon. Member:: How pretty!


Mr. Johnson:: Ask the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) who is making petty politics now.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?

Division


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Finance a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East has already spoken.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I asked the minister a question.


Mr. Speaker:: I know.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: You are not in
the labour committee now.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the minister wishes to reply 1 have no means of dealing with the matter. The hon. member for Essex East has already spoken. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.



BRETTON WOODS AGREEMENTS ACT


Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. C-52, to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, we supported this measure at the resolution stage on May 20, and we still support it. I want to ask the minister two or three questions. I have noticed that over the last couple of years-


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I suggest to the hon. member that if he has questions he should reserve them for the committee stage.


William Hector McMillan: These questions have to do with the bill itself, and it is pretty hard to assign them to a particular clause in the bill. Over the last couple of years I have noticed in the New York Times and other
O'Hurley
O'Leary
Ormiston
Parizeau
Pascoe
Paul
Payne
Pearkes
Phillips
PickersgiU
Pigeon
Racine
Rapp
Ratelle
Regier
Regnier
Ricard
Richard (Kamouraska) Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Roberge
Simpson
Slogan
Small
Smith (Calgary South)
Smith (Simcoe North)
Smith (Winnipeg North)
Southam
Stanton
Starr
Stefanson
Stinson
Tasse
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay
Villeneuve
White-166.

papers certain criticism of Canada's contribution under the Bretton Woods agreement.
I should like to refer to one article in the Montreal Star of May 1, 1958. I do not do so by way of criticism but because I wish the minister's comment on it. The article is headed "World Bank Load 'Unfair' to Canada." It reads in part as follows:
Canada and the United States are beginning to feel they are carrying an unfair share of the load in the world bank and the international monetary fund.
It is claimed in the article that at that time there was no recession in Europe while there was in Canada and the United States, and the view is expressed that the European countries should carry a heavier load. There is reference to West Germany being most frequently criticized because she had benefited to the extent of accumulating $5 billion in gold and foreign exchange reserves. The article goes on to state:
The present West German quota of contributions to both the bank and the monetary fund are regarded in New York and in Canadian financial circles as ridiculously small, especially in view of the fact that the number of countries enrolled in the two organizations has gone up by half since they were formed.
I understand that the West Germans resisted vigorously the proposal that they put up any more money. I have simply quoted from this article to get the minister's comment. Evidently there was some criticism in Canada, and I wondered whether it came from the government or where it originated. We are not offering it as a criticism, but we would like to have some comments from the minister on this. I should like also to ask the minister if he is aware whether or not individual Canadians buy bonds in the international bank, and if so, to what extent.


Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: When we last had this matter before us on May 20 I indicated that I might have something more to say at this stage about the international finance corporation. At that time I expressed some amazement at the fact we were a member of the international finance corporation when no resolution had ever been introduced into the House of Commons requesting that the House of Commons approve Canada's participation in the international finance corporation.
I have had a look at the records and I know the minister is aware of the fact that parliament never gave legislative authority for our association with this organization. However, as he intimated there was a vote passed in the year 1955. The only mention of the money involved, and of Canada's participation, occurred not in the house at all but in the estimates committee on July 5, 1955, under vote 789, "to authorize the purchase
Bretton Woods Agreements Act of 3,600 shares of stock of the international finance corporation, being Canada's subscription as a member thereof for the amount of $3,600,000, United States, notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of May, 1955, $3,555,000".
An hon. member of the committee asked, "Is this a usual expenditure?" Then Mr. Harris replied:
It is the first time it has appeared. The bank is not yet in existence but is expected to be by agreement of the various countries during the course of the fiscal year and we will buy our share of the stock in it.
This is a very odd way in which Canada became a member of an international organization. The minister of finance of the day announced, not to the House of Commons but to an estimates committee, that this was an unusual outlay of money, and he announced that Canada was going to become a member. Our group has reservations about our membership in this organization, because this is not a world-wide organization established to assist the peoples of other nations with the approval of the regimes or the governments of those nations. This is a means whereby an international agency is established which has the right to invest and make money in private enterprises in various areas of the world.
The organization has undertaken so far to help the Siemens company of western Germany to establish an electrical manufacturing plant in Brazil. It has assisted a branch of the Kaiser corporation to establish an automobile plant in Brazil. It has assisted numerous other large industrial organizations or concerns to invest in some of the underdeveloped areas of the world. The corporation is a money making organization. For example, the term of the loan to the Siemens company reads ". .. 6 per cent interest and option on shares". I notice that in all cases except one the organization has taken for itself options on shares.
I assume from reading the report of the minister that the corporation then markets these options. It has made no little amount of money. In the year ending June 30, 1958 it had a net income of $2,358,276. The net income the year before was $1,675,382. I can see a danger in this organization. I know the minister has made the claim that this is an affiliate of the international bank. However, I do not find that it is really an affiliate at all. It may be operating in close consultation with the international bank. However, the purposes of this organization are altogether different from the purposes of the international bank. The international bank is designed to assist in the development of
4468	HOUSE OF
Bretton Woods Agreements Act the underdeveloped areas of the world, with the approval of the governments concerned and also with the approval of the governments whose money is being used. In this case neither the approval of the people whose money is being used has been sought or obtained, nor the approval of the government of the country in which this corporation intends to invest its money.
I feel that the taxpayers of Canada have been misled, because when there was a revote of this money on August 14, 1956, no one asked anything about it; no one made any explanation at that time; nor did they do so the year before when the initial money was voted. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that August 14, 1956 was near the end of a lengthy, eight month session, so there was no debate on the item. I hope that some day the government is going to bring this matter before parliament in the form of a resolution or legislation, so that we may have a debate on whether or not it is expedient that Canada become a member of the international finance corporation and participate in its activities.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to say a few words on this subject. I quite realize that there was a worth-while and comprehensive debate on this legislation at the resolution stage. At that time I believe a question was raised, however, and I hope the minister will say something about it, either before we pass second reading or in committee. I refer to the announcement of President Eisenhower in August when he indicated, as did our own Prime Minister, that it seemed to be of advantage to increase the liquidity of the two funds to which we have been giving attention in this debate.
But there was a No. 3 item which some of us thought might get discussion at New Delhi at the annual meeting, namely President Eisenhower's idea about the international development bank. So that we may have it on the record, President Eisenhower indicated that he would like to see the international monetary fund contributions increased by 50 per cent. He indicated before the assembly in New Delhi that he would also like to see the capital of the world bank doubled; but he added that he felt there should be the establishment-and that is the word I read in the New York Times-of an international development bank as an affiliate of the world bank. I wonder if the minister, who attended this conference on behalf of Canada, would indicate to the house, or later to the committee, just what the difference is between President Eisenhower's conception of a new affiliate of the
[Mr. Regier.l

world bank and the one which I confess the minister did describe in the debate on May 20 known as another affiliate of the world bank, namely the international finance corporation. 1 hope the minister will comment on that.
In addition, I wonder if the minister at some stage before we complete approval of this legislation would indicate whether or not, having surveyed the scene, he concludes that the new resources of the world bank will come chiefly from new national contributions, or will they come, in the case of other countries, mostly from borrowings in the United States by the members of the world bank?
In addition to that, the last figures which I saw indicated that the world bank on concluding their last public report of June 30, 1958 indicated that in the current year they had loaned $711 million, which was stated to be three-quarters as much again as the average of the three preceding years. Perhaps there is a new figure available to the house with respect to world bank activities since this last figure which is available to me as of June 30, 1958.
Another question which I should like to ask the minister, about which 1 am not clear -I probably have not completed adequate research-is this. Has the United States congress yet done down there what is being asked of us here? Another question I would like to ask is, am I right in thinking that in dollars and cents the result not only of the increase in contributions of 50 per cent in the case of the international monetary fund and 100 per cent in the case of the world bank, but also by virtue of the extra percentage of over-all assessment which Canada has agreed to bear in the case of each one of these organizations, amounts to $100 million? That is to say, if the straight 50 per cent were used in the case of the international monetary fund and the 100 per cent increase were used in the case of the world bank, am I right in thinking that the effect would be, without the new percentage assessment that was agreed to by the minister, that we would be asked for $200 million less than is contemplated in the legislation before us?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, before the minister
makes his closing speech, I would just like to make one comment with regard to the speech to which we have just listened. Until I heard the hon. member's speech I had thought that this institution and its aims were acclaimed by every right minded citizen of the world as an attempt whereby those who were in a position to do so assisted others not in a position to take care of themselves. I thought it was an attempt to help people

help themselves, but apparently there seems to be something sinister about it. Apparently because this institution has helped some private institutions to get on their feet we must regard it with suspicion and seek some dark and unworthy motive. I would like to ask the hon. member whether the employment provided and the production produced by these companies, private as they are, which are now helped by the institution which we are further to hear about, is a benefit or a curse? It seems to me really that sometimes those of us who spend a great deal of our time in doctrinaire considerations get away from practical considerations.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think I can be very brief. It seems to me that the points raised by hon. members of the opposition in their remarks could better have been made in committee, because in almost every case they led to questions being asked. However, the questions have been asked and perhaps I can deal briefly with them.


William Moore Benidickson: Our latitude is a little wider on second reading, as the minister will realize.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thought that as we had agreed on the principle of the bill the latitude afforded in committee for questions and answers is much greater than on second reading.


William Moore Benidickson: That has not been the ruling in this parliament, particularly when the minister was piloting through legislation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is again mistaken. He has been here long enough, I think, to know the rules of the house and how they ought to be observed.
Let me begin with the first point which was raised. The subscriptions of these countries are carefully considered on the basis of various economic factors, and I catalogued a number of these in the discussion on the resolution stage on May 20. The government is satisfied that the Canadian subscription in each case is eminently fair. It takes account of the position of Canada in the world, particularly in world commerce and trade; and it is always to be borne in mind that the reason why many countries are seeking to increase their subscriptions to the bank and the fund is that it puts them in a better position to receive aid from these institutions if required.
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) asked about the extent of the Canadian subscriptions. Canada's subscription in the past to the international monetary fund has been $300 million. Had the Canadian subscription been increased simply by 50 per cent, which is the general increase, her subscription would have become $450 million. We are asking the house to approve a subscription of $550 million, which means $100 million in excess of the 50 per cent increase.
In the case of the subscription to the international bank for reconstruction and development, Canada's subscription hitherto has been $325 million. The general percentage of increase as applied to all subscribing countries was 100 per cent. Canada's increase of 100 per cent would have brought her subscription to $650 million. She is actually taking a subscription, if the house approves, of $750 million, which is therefore an increase of $100 million over and above the general rate of increase.
I was also asked, Mr. Speaker, concerning the marketing of bond issues of the international bank. There have been three issues of bonds of the international bank which have been marketed in Canada. One has been paid off and two are outstanding in the aggregate amount of $40 million. I am told that these have been bought mainly by Canadians, and in addition Canadians have also bought some of the issues of the international bank which have been floated in the United States in United States dollars.
I was also asked about the new resources-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the minister know what the market value of the bonds are at the moment, roughly?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, but I can give figures as to the way in which the general rise in interest rates on this continent has affected the rates of the world bank.
Mr. Speaker, I was asked about the new resources of the international bank. It is quite clear that with these increased subscriptions the bank's resources are going to be increased and its ability to market its securities in new borrowings will be considerably improved. In speaking at the resolution stage on May 20 I indicated the fact that the bank's resources-indeed the resources of both the bank and the fund-have been taxed in recent times by the heavy demands upon them and that these increases in the resources of both institutions are necessary if these institutions are to carry on their beneficent work.


William Moore Benidickson: Will the minister permit a question?

Bretton Woods Agreements Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, we are on second reading. I think probably these questions can better be left until the committee stage, if that procedure meets with my hon. friend's convenience.
I was somewhat surprised at the attack made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) on Canada's membership in the international finance corporation and the extraordinarily flimsy grounds upon which the hon. member based his contention that somehow or other Canada has not legally or properly subscribed to the capital of this particular international institution. Mr. Speaker, I must again refer the hon. member to what I said as reported at page 3855 of Hansard in the discussion of this matter on May 20.
There is no question about the legality of the proceedings taken by the Canadian parliament at that time. The former government that was in office at that time, if it had so chosen, could have asked parliament to approve a resolution in this respect. It could have done so. It did not do so. The fact that it did not do so does not render Canada's association with the international finance corporation illegal in the light of the action that parliament took. An appropriation bill passed by parliament is just as much a legislative enactment of this parliament as is any other measure that is passed by this parliament. In this case the government of the day, instead of introducing a formal resolution or a formal bill relating to Canada's joining the international finance corporation, chose to ask parliament to approve a subscription for 3,600 shares of the capital stock of the international finance corporation. It did so in the estimates and, I must say, it did so not on one occasion but on two occasions. If the hon. member thinks now that this matter went through parliament without adequate discussion, then I must recall to his mind the responsibility that he shares in that respect along with others, because he was one of those who decided on those two occasions to forego the opportunity to raise the matter for discussion.


William Moore Benidickson: Except that there was not actually a second vote of money, was there? One vote lapsed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The matter was before the house twice and it was voted upon.


William Moore Benidickson: That is right. There is no quarrel there.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The first vote lapsed. That was the reason for the second one. I refer the hon. member to what I said

at the resolution stage as reported at page 3855 of Hansard of May 20:
Accordingly an item was inserted in the estimates for the fiscal year 1955-56. This item, No. 789, was discussed in the estimates committee on July 5, 1955.
It was on that occasion that an hon. gentleman who was or had been a member of the same party as that of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, namely Mr. Thatcher, questioned this item and was given certain information. Because sufficient signatures to bring the corporation into existence were not obtained in that fiscal year that vote lapsed and the government of that day accordingly inserted in the supplementary estimates for the year 1956-57 another item, namely item 731.


William Moore Benidickson: A repeat.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
On clause 1-Payment of subscriptions out of C.R. fund.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, would the minister care to answer a few of the questions I raised?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman asked me about the loans of the international bank in 1958-59 to date. The loans in 1958-59 to April 21 amounted to $559,475,000.


William Moore Benidickson: Have you any yardstick such as I used quoting from a report of the bank that the loans as of June 30, 1958 were three-quarters beyond what had been loaned in the last three years taking the average?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Certainly the
volume has been steadily rising in recent years. The demands on the bank have been higher than ever before and it was out of that situation that emerged the proposals for the increase in the subscription.


William Moore Benidickson: I also raised the question about the Eisenhower plan which was couched in the words "development plan". I have in front of me a clipping from the London Times. I take it that one of the senior delegates from the United States did refer to this at New Delhi. This purports to be a dispatch from New Delhi to the London Times while the annual conference was taking place and the date is October 9. It confirms the remarks I made when we were discussing this matter on second reading. It refers to a new effort on the part of the United States government to promote economic development.
I suggested that I had read another dispatch in the New York Times to the effect that President Eisenhower had a three-fold outline of suggestions to the United States delegation for the New Delhi conference. I do not have this dispatch before me but my notes indicate that the suggestions included an increase in the I.M.F. fund, an increase in the world bank fund and the establishment -that is the word as it appears in my notes -of a proposed international development bank as an affiliate of the world bank. The dispatch was dated August 27.
The Minister of Finance will recall that the Leader of the Opposition on May 27 made reference to this as reported at page 3855 of Hansard. I just wondered if the minister could recall the distinction between what might be involved in this proposal which was given a great deal of publicity

Bretton Woods Agreements Act across the world and the very full explanation of the work of the international finance corporation which I willingly admit the minister gave to the house on May 20. What is the distinction between those two possible affiliates of the world bank?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, may I first turn to a question the hon. member asked me earlier about ratification by the United States congress. I am informed that congress completed ratification yesterday.


William Moore Benidickson: Along the terms of the schedule outlined by the minister?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, quite, that is to say, the United States subscriptions as set forth in the table I put on Hansard on May 20.
The hon. gentleman now asks me about an organization which he refers to as the international development bank. The name that this proposal bears is the international development association. I was asked a question about this a fortnight ago by the Leader of the Opposition. He referred to it in the discussion at the resolution stage of the present measure on May 20.
The international development association, I wish first of all to make clear, has nothing to do with the international finance corporation. The suggestion emanated from Washington and discussion on it was current in Washington about a year ago. It was known at that time as the Monroney plan. The father of it was Senator Monroney. The gist of this plan was that a new organization might be set up to provide loans in hard currency available to countries in need of loans in hard currency which would be repayable by them in soft currency. They would be permitted to repay in their own currencies.
The discussion at Washington in the spring and early summer of 1958 had proceeded to a point where it was thought that it might be the intention of the United States delegation to the meeting of the governors of the international bank and the international monetary fund at New Delhi in October to bring the matter forward as a proposal there. However, that was not done. The matter has been rather dormant in the interval. There have been indications in the press of late that the subject is to be revived. When I was asked about this on May 20 by the Leader of the Opposition I indicated that the Canadian government has not had occasion to express an opinion or take a position on the matter as yet because it has not received any proposal in sufficiently concrete terms to enable it to do so.


William Moore Benidickson: I am quoting again from my notes. The minister will recall that

President Eisenhower introduced this concept of an international development bank and described it as a possible affiliate of the world bank. The minister will also recall that a somewhat similar suggestion concerning a commonwealth bank was advanced by Prime Minister Macmillan. Both President Eisenhower and Prime Minister Macmillan visited Canada during 1958 and I am sure both of these concepts were advanced to the government. There was a discussion with Prime Minister Macmillan about his idea of a commonwealth bank. Was there any discussion of this at New Delhi?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman.


William Moore Benidickson: I raised a supplementary question on second reading which the minister quite properly did not want to answer at that point. I raised it because I felt he was not answering my main question fully. My question was this. The minister has explained to us that Canada's contribution will be made out of the exchange fund. We have United States currency and assets out of which we can make our contribution under the obligations of the statute in front of us.
My question was whether the minister, as a result of his attendance at this world meeting and as a result of additional information that comes to him steadily, could inform us whether it was his opinion that the additional contributions from other members of these two international finance organizations would come from reserves that they have, such as we have, in United States funds, or whether they would really in fact come from additional borrowings that these members would have to make in the United States?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am told, it is expected that the countries which are raising their subscriptions will be able to do so out of their own exchange reserves.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, it is some time since I have been intimately connected with some of the activities of these two organizations. Can the minister inform the committee as to whether or not any loans have been made by the bank to Canadian corporations or persons? Certainly, I am quite sure the answer will be no in the case of Canada. Canada has not had any exchange difficulties which would warrant any appeal to the international monetary fund. We have had no difficulties since 1947, and we did not borrow at that time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There have been no loans to Canada from the international bank.


William Moore Benidickson: Similarly, would that be so with respect to the international finance

corporation, even though the minister indicated some of their lendings have been in relatively small amounts. There have been none to Canadian persons or corporations?


Donald Methuen Fleming: None in that case at all, Mr. Chairman.


William Hector McMillan: I wish to ask one question. I understand that Canada's security holdings in the bank were 3.3 per cent. Do these amendments change that percentage materially in the bank or in the fund?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not materially.


William Moore Benidickson: Following up the question of the hon. member for Welland, I had asked just what the dollar value was of the increase in the percentage, which the minister confirmed was $100 million in each case. Can we have for the record just the change in the percentage of national contributions before New Delhi, as of now, as a result of the agreement made at New Delhi?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That can be worked out. I will be glad to send that to my hon. friend.


William Moore Benidickson: I do not think it is in the book.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. It will depend, of course, on the ratifications. And, of course, account must be taken as well of the fact that changes in membership are going on all the time. There are new additions to the membership.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister indicated- and I think he was devoting his attention at that point clearly to the international finance corporation-that it was supported by agreements to subscribe to stock by 57 members of the world bank.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The international finance corporation.


William Moore Benidickson: What is the actual number of countries which subscribe to the world bank as against the 57 which belong to the international finance corporation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Sixty-eight.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, is it not correct that the world bank also makes loans available for private investment in the many under-developed areas of the world?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, sir.


Erhart Regier: Is this not the only essential difference between the world bank and the international finance corporation? The world bank makes these loans available at as near cost as possible, with the approval of the nation or of the government of the country that is lending the money and also with the approval of the government of the nation in
Bretton Woods Agreements Act which the investment is made; whereas, on the other hand, loans made by the international finance corporation are not made at cost. One of the aims of that organization is to make money and the loans need not have the approval of the government whose money in the main is being used, and does not need the approval of the government or the nation in which the investment is being made.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think I can do better, in stating the purposes and functions of these two institutions and comparing them than to draw attention to what I said about them at the committee stage in the statement I made on May 20, at pages 3852 and 3855 of Hansard. Hon. members will find this in the second column on page 3852. I pointed out:
The international bank has, by direct loans and by arranging lor investment from other public and private sources, contributed to the long-term economic growth of many countries, particularly those in greatest need of development capital. It has also provided a pool of competent technical personnel to assist countries in working out sound development programs.
As to the international finance corporation, I said at page 3855 of Hansard, in the second paragraph:
The international finance corporation is an affiliate of the international bank for reconstruction and development with membership open only to governments which are members of the bank. Its objective is to further economic development by encouraging the growth of productive private enterprise in its member countries, particularly in the less developed areas.
Then I pointed out the means available to the international finance corporation for pursuing that purpose. There are three of them:
(1)	Investing in productive private enterprises, in association with private investors and without government guarantee of repayment, in cases where sufficient private capital is not available on reasonable terms.
(2)	Serving as a clearing house to bring together investment opportunities, private capital-both foreign and domestic-and experienced management; and
(3)	Helping to stimulate the productive investment of private capital both domestic and foreign.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time, by leave now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
4474	HOUSE OF
Judges Act JUDGES ACT

Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to pr.ovide salaries for three additional puisne judges of the superior court of Quebec, for two additional judges of the supreme court of British Columbia and for two additional judges of the supreme court of Alberta.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the resolution
is short and self-explanatory. Its purpose is to authorize the introduction of a bill to provide salaries for three additional judges of the superior court of Quebec, two additional judges of the trial division of the high court of Alberta and two additional judges of the supreme court of British Columbia. These additions have in every case been requested by and the necessary authority has been provided under appropriate provincial legislation. What is now necessary is for this parliament to amend the Judges Act to provide the salaries which will make it possible for us to make the appointments. (Translation):


Mr. Meunier:: The Minister of Justice
<Mr. Fulton) is introducing a bill providing for the salary of a greater number of judges for the superior court of the province of Quebec, the supreme court of British Columbia, and the supreme court of Alberta.
I may say that, in a general way, we are in favour of that proposed legislation since, as the minister explained, those new judges for each of those provinces, have been requested by each province concerned, which are responsible for the administration of justice.
There is no doubt that with the increase in population in Canada, the number of people amenable to courts increases, and that, sometimes, too long delays in the solution of cases become a denial of justice.
The province of Quebec is requesting the appointment of three judges to the superior court for the combined districts of Abitibi, Rouyn-Noranda and Timiskaming, of Chicoutimi and Rimouski, the appointed judges to reside in those respective districts. Those three judicial districts are under the Quebec territorial division and are quite a distance from it. There is no doubt that a judge residing in each of those districts will improve the situation of the people concerned and will be of service to the population in general.


Those appointments, which have been recommended and requested for many years by the bar association of each of those districts, were long overdue. It has never been known why those requests have been postponed until today by the Quebec governmental authorities, because autonomy is in no way concerned in that matter. The future will probably tell.
In conclusion, I hope the minister will appoint to those positions of judges men of integrity, learning and legal knowledge, who will be able to fulfil efficiently their role for the welfare of the people under their jurisdiction and of the population in general.
(Text):


Mr. Broome:: I should like to say a few words on this resolution. There have been several articles in Vancouver newspapers pointing out that the supreme court of British Columbia is roughly nine months behind in its work. If the ordinary citizen has to make use of such facilities it is certainly not justice that he should have to wait that long before his case is brought to trial.
I want to mention one other point and I suppose it is only on the resolution stage that I can do so. I refer to the fact that there is no age limit with respect to judges except those of the Supreme Court of Canada and in my view this may tend to be reflected in lower productivity as judges increase in age. I know that it is a question of the constitution but I think that something should be done so that the same age limit that applies to judges of the Supreme Court of Canada will be applied to judges in the various provincial supreme courts and courts of appeal. I can see that we will have to continue adding judges all the time if we happen to come to the point where the average age of our judges approaches 80 years. This is not to say that a judge who is over 75 may not be fully competent to take care of the work he has to do. If judges are to continue beyond 75 then it should be done by way of extension but preferably retirement at 75 should be made compulsory.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to take advantage of this resolution to ask the minister if he can explain the fact that notwithstanding that legislation was introduced last session providing for six new county court judges in Ontario five were appointed and one appointment which was made available for my own county of Essex was not proceeded with. I am not blaming the minister for that situation-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: -but perhaps the minister can explain-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman-


Murdo William Martin: -why the appointment has not been made-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman-


Murdo William Martin: -when legislative authority was given for that purpose. 1 would be very grateful to the minister if on this measure he would explain that fact.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Murdo William Martin: I have asked the minister a question. He may want to get the resolution through quickly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I doubt very much if the question asked by the hon. member for Essex East is in order. It has nothing to do with the resolution to amend the Judges Act to provide seven more judges of the various superior courts. However, in order to avoid a controversy as to the rules, the short answer is that the amendments to the judicature act of Ontario introduced last year did not provide specifically for a vacancy for the district to which my hon. friend refers. It is true that in discussions I had with the attorney-general there was some reference to the district as being one that might require some attention but my understanding is that the situation there has improved recently. Five judges have been appointed and I expect to be making the appointment of a sixth judge shortly.
The attorney-general of Ontario is anxious to proceed with some reforms of the county court of Ontario which involve an enlargement, as it were, of the areas to which district court judges could be sent and it is my intention, in compliance with the request of the attorney-general of Ontario, to appoint one extra judge, the sixth for whom a vacancy was provided, on that basis.


Murdo William Martin: That is to say, my hon. friend is saying that if the attorney-general takes every step that he must take in order to make that appointment effective there will be the fullest co-operation from my hon. friend in the appointment of an extra judge in the county of Essex, making three judges there. Is that the effect of my hon. friend's answer?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think so, Mr. Chairman. As I tried to explain, the legislation passed by Ontario last year did not provide for the specific designation of six extra vacancies to six specific counties. It is true that the five so far appointed have been designated to specific counties but the 66968-9-284
Judges Act
attorney-general of Ontario is anxious to proceed on a somewhat different basis for the purpose of testing out a reform he has in mind. I intend to appoint the sixth judge but there is no assurance that he will be appointed with any specific designation to the county of Essex or the district in which Windsor lies.


Murdo William Martin: Does my hon. friend not think that he owes an explanation for bringing forward this legislation making possible the appointment of an additional judge to the county of Essex? When this matter was raised a year ago my hon. friend told me that the responsibility for not having proceeded with the appointment lay with the attorney-general and that the reason given was that the latter had in mind the desirability of rotating judges and he thought that kind of arrangement might be made in the county of Essex. Now my hon. friend comes forward and tells us that the Ontario government has taken legislative action which precludes the possibility of a third judge there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I never said any such thing. I do not know whether my hon. friend is deliberately desiring to misunderstand what I said but I said absolutely no such thing as the hon. member now suggests.


Murdo William Martin: Well, explain the thing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think my hon. friend wishes to listen to an explanation. I have explained it twice. At no time did I say that the responsibility rested exclusively in the attorney general of Ontario. What I said was that the legislation introduced in Ontario last year provided for the appointment of six extra judges, but it did not specifically create vacancies in the districts of Ontario to which those judges were to be appointed. As a result of a discussion with the attorney general of Ontario it was agreed that five of the judges should be appointed and assigned to specific districts, specific county courts, but with regard to the sixth appointment it was the desire of the attorney general of Ontario, as I said, to test out a new approach to the structure of the district courts of Ontario.
It is, therefore, the intention to appoint a sixth judge without assignment to a specific district. This sixth judge will then be available to serve in any district where a backlog of cases exists or the absence of a judge or any other feature makes it desirable for him to proceed to hold court.


Murdo William Martin: It is quite clear that I did not misunderstand the situation at all. Since my hon. friend used the word "deliberately" one could have readily objected

Judges Act
to that but I thought, in the interest of the passage of this item, I would not. It is quite clear now that the situation is.
Last year my hon. friend took authority to appoint six judges, one of them to be appointed in the county of Essex.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege: I have attempted to explain three times that authority was not taken on that basis. I never said authority was taken on that basis.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I ask my hon. friend to look at the words he used in the house, and I am not going to change what I said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friend will give me the reference in Hansard-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not go it readily at hand.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend is stating what is not correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am stating that is the situation as outlined by the Minister of Justice, and which he obviously fails to recall perhaps deliberately or perhaps because he has just forgotten. The fact is that is the situation which the minister outlined. He also told me, in answer to a question, that if there was no action taken that was the responsibility of- the attorney general of Ontario.
Now it is quite clear what the situation is. The attorney general does not intend that there shall be a third judge in the county of Essex. In view of the public statement made that there should be a third judge, we are now told by the Minister of Justice that it is not his intention or it is not the intention of the attorney general to appoint a third judge in the county of Essex. Now, that is the situation. If the Minister of Justice had come to parliament last year and had not taken the authority we would not have been in the situation that now confronts us and there would not have been, on the part of certain very worthy individuals in my county, the embarrassment that has flown from this action-and they are not supporters of this government either. As a result-


Mr. Stinson:: Mr. Chairman-


Paul Joseph James Martin: -there has arisen all this confusion and bungling on the part of the attorney general of Ontario and this Minister of Justice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend will say, if I attempt to answer him as he should be answered, that I am now provoking bad feeling and holding up this legislation, but I cannot allow this to go unanswered. The

hon. gentleman has done an entirely unwarranted thing. Without having had the courtesy to give the committee the Hansard reference he has misstated what I said last year. I challenge him to find anywhere in Hansard what he says I said, and until the hon. gentleman does so he must proceed under a cloud in this committee, having misstated what was said and having been challenged to prove it and then being unable to find it.
In any event, his question is out of order, and I say flatly that he has misstated what was said last year when the amendment to the Judges Act was introduced and the result of the amendments introduced in Ontario. I state that as a fact. I am not prepared to pursue the matter further because the whole discussion has been out of order. What we are now seeking to do is have an amendment to provide for the salaries of additional judges in the superior courts, and the county courts in Ontario are in no way affected. (Translation):


Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Chairman, could the minister indicate on what date the provinces involved in this proposal have advised the federal government that their legislation with respect to the appointment of additional judges was in force?
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: The notification from Alberta was received by letter from the attorney general of Alberta, dated April 1, informing me that the act of the Alberta legislature was passed and assented to on March 31, 1959. The notification from Quebec was not received, if I may say so, directly, but we received information that the legislation had been passed. I wrote to the attorney general of Quebec and received a letter in reply dated March 16 confirming that the provincial legislation provided for three additional judges to the superior court, and that it had been adopted unanimously by the legislature.
I was informed by the attorney general of British Columbia-rather I have here a letter from the deputy attorney general of British Columbia addressed to the deputy attorney general, dated April 11, which advised that the provincial legislation amending the supreme court act of the province to increase the number of judges by two was approved at the session of the legislature held in the spring and was assented to on March 20, 1959.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order, it being five o'clock, we must proceed to private bills.


Lionel Chevrier: Before you call it five o'clock, Mr. Chairman, may I say that, in order to assist the business of the house we on this

side of the house would be prepared to waive our right to deal with private and public business that is generally dealt with between five and six o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: I am very grateful to the hon. member for Laurier for making that suggestion. I understand that the hon. member for Assiniboia has also agreed to this course.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I must remind the house that when such a proposition is made it must be made while Mr. Speaker is in the chair.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15. Is it the will of the house to waive the provisions of the standing order this day and revert to the business which was interrupted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



JUDGES ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Fulton-Mr. Sevigny in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to provide salaries for three additional puisne judges of the superior court of Quebec, for two additional judges of the supreme court of British Columbia and for two additional judges of the supreme court of Alberta.
Mr. McPhillips:: I should like to say a few words in connection with this resolution. So far as my province of British Columbia is concerned, I am in agreement with the fact that we need two further superior court judges. There is no question about that. However, there is something in connection with the administration of the supreme court of British Columbia which is, from time to time, causing a lot of trouble. The people of British Columbia, by legislative enactment, provided that superior court judges should be resident in certain parts of the province. This act provides that there should be a resident judge in the interior of the province and certain resident judges on Vancouver island and in the cities of New Westminster and Vancouver.
Under the administration of the previous chief justice and the present chief justice of the supreme court, there has been a tendency -I would say more than a tendency-to require all the superior court judges to reside in our large commercial city of Vancouver 66968-9-284J
Judges Act
and from there to fan out like the spokes of a wheel all over the province. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that the government of Canada has nothing to do with this in the sense of legislation; but the law is there, and I do suggest that should the province of British Columbia come along and ask the Canadian government to provide salaries for two more judges which are needed, the government of Canada could very well say, "We think you are right and do need two more judges, but we will not pay the salaries for two more judges unless you follow the law as it exists in your own province of British Columbia with regard to the residence of these judges".
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fulton thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-56, to amend the Judges Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time? By leave, now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before the bill is read a second time, I should like to put a question to the minister which I meant to put in committee but I was called out for a moment, and it is this. Is there any provision in the existing law for the payment of the salary of a fourth judge in the supreme court of Newfoundland? If not, could provision not be made for that purpose in the existing legislation, in view of the professed interest of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the minister in having such an appointment made?


Edmund Davie Fulton: the second reading of Bill No. C-56, to amend the Judges Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think that having moved this measure I have spoken first, and therefore if I answer the question of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) I presume I am closing the debate. If that is in order I would be glad to answer his question.
I will send out for the information, but I regret I am not able to speak with absolute certainty. My impression, however, is that there is no provision at present in the Judges Act for payment of a salary of a fourth judge in Newfoundland. It is my understanding that there is no authority, as it were, for us to ask parliament to provide such a salary until the provincial government has taken the necessary step of providing a vacancy. I understand that the position is that the provincial government has a statute which provides for a fourth vacancy, but that statute

Judges Act
requires proclamation. This is one of the matters upon which I had a friendly discussion with the premier of Newfoundland on the occasion of my recent visit. Because the discussions were private I am not able to go further at the moment than to say that it was discussed, and it would be my hope that the province of Newfoundland-mind you, only if it sees fit-might proclaim its act and take the necessary steps to bring it into force. At that time I am certain that this government and parliament would give sympathetic consideration to the necessary legislative enactment to provide for the salary.


Ernest James Broome: Before the minister sits down, I wonder if he would comment on my suggestion with regard to the retiring age of judges?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter which has been of concern to successive governments. My understanding of the situation is that it would require a constitutional amendment because the provisions with regard to the appointment of judges and their tenure of office are provided under the British North America Act, and being judges of provincial courts of the type we are discussing today I understand it is not the type of subject to which amending action by the dominion parliament alone would be appropriate. It would require an agreement with the provinces, and that type of constitutional amendment, as hon. members know, is extremely difficult to obtain.
With regard to the principle suggested that there should be an age limit of 75 upon judges in superior courts, I am in entire agreement with that. At the present time the judges of the county courts and of the exchequer court and the Supreme Court of Canada have an age limit of 75. It seems an anomaly, to say the least, that if the judges of the highest court in the land must retire at 75, and the judges of the county courts, if I may say without offence, at the other end of the scale, must also retire at 75, that the judges of the trial and appeal courts of the provinces should not be subject to the same age limit. It is a matter which, I believe, is increasingly commanding the interest and concern of the bar association, and there is a possibility that the bar association may take it up with provincial governments. In that event there may be some hope for agreement and ultimate amendment, and certainly any move in that direction would receive my own enthusiastic support.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second
time.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, may I ask the minister if there are copies of the bill available so that we may look at it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, the bill has been printed for some time and copies should be available for distribution.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, we have not got them at this time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, while you are leaving the chair to take the chair in committee, I will send out and get copies, because I am sure they are in the distribution office.
The house in committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
On clause 1.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, while waiting for the bill to be distributed, I thought I would like to ask a question of the minister; I think he requires no notice of it. He is aware that in Rainy River in Ontario the district court judge was asked repeatedly to serve in a congested court in Toronto. The result was that for almost two years his services were so much in demand in Toronto that he was not available for the court in Rainy River to which he was appointed. A short time ago the minister saw fit to appoint him formally to the Toronto court, but I would like to point out to the minister that in consequence of this co-operation during the past two years at least the members of the bar are complaining very frequently about the lack of attention to the business of the citizens of Rainy River. I wonder whether or not the minister could inform the committee whether he has some optimism about having somebody in that court in the near future who would give full time service to the duties of the district?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can. The hon. gentleman has been kind enough to discuss with me personally on two or three occasions and I appreciate his interest in the matter. It is, as he knows, an area which is not one of the easiest in the provinces, and that presents certain problems in connection with making these appointments, but I expect the problems will be resolved in the near future. In the meantime as an earnest of my intention I would remind the hon. member of the fact that when a vacancy arose in the other part of that district, at Kenora itself, the appointment was made with considerable dispatch, and I expect that this one will be made quite shortly.


William Moore Benidickson: I agree, Mr. Chairman, and I did compliment the minister personally upon the dispatch with which he dealt with the vacancy in Kenora. In the circumstances

I can say no more about it. I have no doubt as to that matter. The long period of absences with the consequent pile-up of unfinished business I think exists in my district in the southern area of Rainy River. I just urge the minister to give the matter his close attention. I compliment him upon his appointment and dispatch in the other area.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister made an error in referring to dispatch. I had not intended to ask a question but I should like to ask the minister whether he can tell me what is the longest period in which there was a vacancy in the chief justiceship of a province.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am afraid that I have not that information here. May I suggest to the hon. member that, if it is important to him, I can get it and that he ask a question on my estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to have the information. I should be quite happy to have it given on the minister's estimates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If our records show it, I will get it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the revision and consolidation of certain of the pension provisions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of superannuation and other benefits to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their dependents and for matters incidental thereto, and to provide further for certain administrative changes in connection therewith.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think it would be appropriate if I made a short statement on this resolution. The main purpose of the bill which will follow the resolution, if it is adopted, is to provide a separate statute regulating the pension provisions for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and to bring the pension provisions available to members of the force more closely in line with the Public Service
R.C.M.P. Act
Superannuation Act or rather with the provisions available to those having their pensions under that act.
The main provision in the present Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act providing pensions to members of the force are found in part V of that act which was introduced in 1949. But this provision covers only a limited number of members. The original provision for payment of pensions to members of the force was made in 1889. Since then five different parts have been added to the act dealing with contributory and noncontributory pensions with only occasional attempts having been made to integrate one part with the other. The result has been to create confusion and to make it almost impossible to explain correctly the various pension privileges to personnel in terms that can be understood. In addition, as a result of the conglomeration and unscientific nature of the pension provisions in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act there have arisen a number of anomalies and cases of hardship with which it is at present impossible to deal.
The purpose of the present proposed bill is to rationalize the pension provisions under one general heading and to take care, in so far as it is possible to do so by legislation, of the hardship cases.
Perhaps I might try to outline briefly for the committee the main changes that will be accomplished. As I have said, the first change is that instead of the pension provisions available being found in the same general act as that which covers the constitution and the organization of the force itself, the pension provisions will now be contained in an entirely separate statute. The new feature affecting members serving under parts II and III of the present act which have relation to pension, apart from additional opportunity being afforded them to elect to have all their service count under part V, is the provision that they may receive disability pensions for injuries sustained on duty as well as their service pensions.
At the present time members who have served under parts II and III on retirement are entitled to a retirement pension. But if later it is found that they suffer from a disability which was incurred on service they are unable to obtain benefits that are available to almost every other person in a comparable position, namely a disability pension in addition to the service pension. That anomaly is now being removed under the new bill. Hence, the provisions which will be found in the bill will take care of all cases that we know of where hardship results

R.C.M.P. Act
from disability which did not occasion retirement. It will also assist these former members who sustained disabilities and are in receipt of a small service pension.
Some of the other anomalies, or what I might describe as anomalies, which will be taken care of-I refer to anomalies causing hardship-are as follows. It is desired to permit certain members who transferred from the British Columbia provincial police to count their service with the Imperial forces, something which is not permitted at present under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act but which they could have counted for pension purposes had they continued serving in the British Columbia police.
Another type of case is that of a member who is presently required to serve out his full term of engagement even although he may have completed his full pensionable service before the expiry of his term of engagement.
A third type of anomaly which presently exists is that a member of the force must serve ten years in the force under the present provisions before becoming eligible for a disability pension. This bill would permit a pension with only ten years' pensionable service. This is important, Mr. Chairman, in order to cover the cases of transfers to the force from other branches of the public service.
The normal provision with regard to transfers between branches of the public service is that a transferee from one branch to another can count for pension in his new branch all his service in the former branch. Under the provisions of the present Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, if a public servant transfers into the force from any other branch of the public service his former service does not count toward his police pension. Under the new bill that service will count toward police pension and all that will be necessary is that he have ten years' pensionable service.
Another anomaly is that a member reaching the age limit for his rank with less than 20 years' service in the force cannot receive a pension at all. This provision produces particular hardship in the case of some transferees from provincial forces. It is proposed under the new legislation that ten years' service in the force will qualify a member for a service pension on reaching the retirement age.
It is necessary, in addition, to rectify certain anomalies such as the following. At the present time a member discharged for misconduct with between 20 years and 25 years of service may receive a larger pension than one retiring voluntarily with the same length

of service. This is by reason of the provisions of section 97(c) of the present act. This seems entirely unjustified and the situation is being taken care of under the new bill.
Again there is no flexibility at present with regard to pensions on retirement for misconduct. A member so retired with between ten and twenty years of service must receive either two-thirds of the normal pension or nothing. The new bill will permit such a member to receive anything from nothing up to a full pension at the discretion of the treasury board so there will not be the arbitrary division into two-thirds or nothing.
Again at present under part V a commissioned officer cannot retire voluntarily with full pension even though he may have completed 35 years of pensionable service. He must be compulsorily retired. It is intended to permit such an officer to receive a pension when he has completed 35 years of service or attained retirement age.
I said earlier that one of the main purposes was to bring the provisions for pensions available to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police more closely into line with those available to public servants under the Public Service Superannuation Act. This will be achieved in the following respects. First, it is intended in conformity with the modern approach to pensions available to public servants to provide that the police pensions in future be granted as a matter of right whereas at present under the provisions of the act they are at the discretion of the governor in council.
Second, the Public Service Superannuation Act now makes provision for deferred annuities whereas under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act the maximum period of pensionable service in the force is 35 years. In the past if a member retired voluntarily with under 20 years of service he could receive only the return of his contributions. Our new bill will provide for either the return of contributions or a deferred annuity to commence at the age of 60 unless the member in the meantime becomes disabled, when he will be able to receive an immediate annuity, or if he should die his widow would receive a pension. This is in line with the provisions of the Public Service Superannuation Act.
Also the Public Service Superannuation Act provides for the payment of a residual amount of pension contribution to the estate of a member following the death of his widow and after his children have reached 18 years of age. This bill includes the same provisions.
I believe that covers the main features of the bill which will be introduced when the

resolution is carried. As I said at the beginning, it is intended to bring the pension provisions available to members of the police more closely into line with those of the Public Service Superannuation Act and in so doing to provide authority or coverage under which we can take care of certain anomalies which have arisen in the past applicable particularly to the cases of those who transferred to the force from provincial forces and to certain hardship cases that I have referred to under the heading of those who have retired on merely service pension and are later found to be suffering from a disability incurred during service but who are not entitled to the service pension in addition to their disability pension.
If there are any other particular points that I should cover they will no doubt occur during the debate on second reading and the discussion in committee and I shall be glad to clear up any difficulties then.
The one final remark I should like to make is that it is a matter of great satisfaction not only to members of the force and the officers who are in charge of administering the pension for the police to see these improvements and modernizations in the pension provisions but it will, I am sure, be a matter of satisfaction to the house and to the country as a whole to see this action taken whereby the hardships, anomalies and injustices of the past can be removed for the future.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, we have listened with interest to the statement made by the minister on this resolution. On the whole we agree with him and the government that it is a good thing to separate the present act into two acts one for the administration and discipline of the force and the other for pensions.
I was extremely interested in what the minister had to say about correcting anomalies and preventing hardships to members of the force. Of course, these hardships are checked only as they arise and probably it was not possible to correct the situation previously.
I think I need not say any more at the present time. We will reserve what we have to say on the principle of the bill until we have seen the legislation and compared it with the present act. We will then put questions to the minister in committee.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fulton thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-57, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



R.C.M.P. ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE LEGISLATION RESPECTING ORGANIZATION AND DISCIPLINE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice: moved the second reading of Bill C-34 to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker this is the second of the two proposed Royal Canadian Mounted Police bills, this one dealing with the organization and administration of the force and the disciplinary provisions under which the members will serve. It represents a substantial modernization and streamlining of the provisions governing organization and discipline.
At the outset I should like to pay tribute again to the serving members of the force from the commissioner down. I wish to make it clear that the bulk of the recommendations for this improvement and modernization came from the police themselves. 1 know that sometimes certain persons have given the impression that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police suffer from, shall I say, a certain rigidity in their approach to organizational and disciplinary problems. I think it is significant, and I want to emphasize the fact to the house and through the house to all those who are interested, that it has been my experience since assuming responsibility for the force that all members and particularly the officers, as I have said from the commissioner down, with whom 1 have come in contact have been most concerned to modernize this act and bring about certain changes which in their view would make the administration and the code of discipline of the force both more up to date and more democratic. This is not for a moment to say that there are any improper or reactionary attitudes on the part of anyone in the force; indeed, quite the contrary. I am not suggesting that under the former act there was anything undesirable. I am suggesting simply that it is a tribute to the modern and progressive outlook of the responsible officers of the force to find that they themselves are the ones who have brought forward and pressed for the modernization of their own act.
Perhaps the house would like to have a brief summary of the main provisions of this bill. With respect to the organization and administration of the personnel of the force it will be found that the bill will allow for greater flexibility and yet at the same time it will retain and in some respects improve the system by which there is an over-all control of the force by the government and responsibility of the force to the government.



R.C.M.P.

[Stage Direction]
One respect, for instance, in which there will be greater flexibility and yet a proper retention of control is in the feature that the position of the civil servants who serve with the force will now be regularized. In the past, the commissioner could appoint several categories of special employees. Under the new bill there will be only one category of supernumerary special constables. All others serving with the force will be provided for on the establishment proper of the force, except only casual employees under prevailing rates, in which case treasury board approval will be necessary for the employment of such persons. Therefore, it will be seen that there is a considerable improvement and streamlining in respect of the relationship between the force and the civilian personnel employed with the force.
Particularly, I should point out to the house that the result of the bill will be that the nebulous in-between group of employees, employees who are neither civil servants nor actual members of the force, will disappear when this bill becomes operative.
With respect to another category of member, namely those who form the R.C.M. Police reserve, there is no substantial change made in this position, but a number of details have been eliminated and the general provisions for the administration of the reserve have been made more flexible.
One other point that should be noted in connection with changes in the administration of personnel is that there is provision for a new rank, the rank of chief superintendent. This rank will be interposed between the present positions or ranks of assistant commissioner and superintendent. The effect of it will be that the position of assistant commissioner will be one grade higher. This, I think, is entirely appropriate in view of the fact that in the majority of the provinces with which we have contracts for the service of the R.C.M. Police the contract divisions, as they are called, are commanded by an assistant commissioner. It is, therefore, I think, entirely appropriate that the position of assistant commissioner should be upgraded.
With respect to those features in which, as I have said, the administration has been modernized, I would point out the following. There are a number of provisions being deleted which, while some may regret that they are seeing the official indications of the end of an era, nevertheless do indicate that in the amendments in this bill we are taking account of the fact that conditions have changed. By way of historic interest and illustration of what I have said may I direct the attention of the house to section 18 (2) of the present act which provides that:

No constable shall so enter any hut, tent, wigwam or dwelling, unless accompanied by or under the order of a commissioned officer.
When I noticed this provision was being deleted I asked the commissioner about it. He explained to me that this was the sort of provision that in its wording and in its implications goes right back to the year 1874 when the force was first founded and their main duty was to deal with Indians on the western plains. In fact, their almost exclusive duty was to deal with Indians on the western plains, and in order to ensure that there might be no untoward incidents it was necessary to provide that while they had the right of search and entry, no constable should actually enter a hut, tent or wigwam unless accompanied by an officer. This, in so far as it reflected the ambit of the duties of the force of those days, has of course been entirely outmoded by the modern day conditions and the modern responsibilities under which the force operates and the responsibilities which it discharges and these provisions, for instance, are no longer necessary.
Then, again, in the new bill, one will see evidence which gives ample proof of the fact that a good part of the responsibility discharged by the force now arises under the contracts with the provincial governments and, indeed, with a number of the municipalities in all provinces except Ontario and Quebec.
I should perhaps mention that with respect to pay and allowances there is streamlining in the sense that in many cases functions formerly discharged by the governor in council are transferred to treasury board. I can reassure the house, however, that there is no loss of government control in that. If there is any difference of opinion, of course, the minister can take the matter to the full cabinet.
Another example of changes which take account of present-day responsibilities of the force is found in the provisions regarding disposition of property. This is a new provision because property comes into the possession of the force throughout the Northwest Territories, and we find that it is throughout the Northwest Territories where they discharge many functions not discharged by police in other parts of Canada. They have a multiplicity of welfare functions in connection with the Indian and Eskimo native populations, as I saw at first-hand during the course of a visit that I paid to the western areas of the district of Mackenzie immediately after Easter. There is, however, no legislation similar to that in the provinces to cover the disposition of the property coming into the

44S3
custody of the police under these circumstances, so we now have to make provision in our own act to provide for the manner in which and the circumstances under which this property will be disposed of.
I turn now to the provisions regarding discipline. Here, as I have said, the emphasis is upon making the procedures more democratic and of eliminating wide and arbitrary powers which were contained in the former act. Again I want to emphasize that the fact that these powers are eliminated and modified should not be taken and is not to be taken as an indication that there were abuses in the past; but we have felt that when we are introducing legislation to amend and to modernize the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act then, in accordance with the pattern and indeed with the desire of the senior officers of the force itself, it is better to provide what I call a democratic procedure, and particularly to provide for a review and appeal procedure in connection with those disciplinary cases.
The matter has been approached on the basis that we should create two categories of offences, minor offences and major offences. It is provided that offences against a standing order, rule or regulation which formerly involved the possibility of very severe, indeed harsh penalties for relatively minor or new offences will now be dealt with only as minor offences.
The reason I say that, Mr. Speaker, is that it was quite possible, and it always must be quite possible, to change standing orders and rules and regulations. No one, of course, is excused from an offence or from responsibility for an offence by reason of the fact that he did not know of the change. It was, however, quite possible to provide new offences in this manner and the circumstances were such that a member committing one of these new offences might find himself subject to very extreme penalities.
We have therefore provided, as I say, that all offences against standing orders, rules or regulations will be dealt with as minor offences and we have provided conversely that major offences are in general only offences against the provisions of the act itself. In providing these two categories of offences we think we have rationalized the difference in procedure and brought in a more up to date and more satisfactory code of discipline.
We have provided also for an appeal to the commissioner in the case of convictions for minor offences and, which is entirely new, we have also provided for a board of review to which appeals can be taken in the case of a conviction for a major offence.
66968-9-285

[Stage Direction]
With respect to custody, it is interesting to note that at the present time there is nothing in the act which prohibits the holding in custody of a member of the force charged with an offence for an indefinite period without trial. I am not saying that this was done but it was the view of the commissioner that it should not be possible to do so and that the act should be changed so as to make it impossible. We are providing in the new act safeguards and limits as to the time during which an offender can be held in custody without formal trial and disposition of his case.
With respect to the tribunals before which disciplinary cases were heard, we have removed the distinction between officers and members of the force so far as trial for minor offences is concerned and the tribunal in all cases will be the same. With respect to major offences, these must now be reported to the commissioner and the trial will be held under arrangements made by him, which removes any chance of bias in the tribunal that might result from the fact that an officer would otherwise possibly be trying one of his own men. It is now provided that the commissioner himself must arrange for the tribunal before which the trial will be held.
With respect to the laying of the charge, if a member of the force is charged with a minor offence an officer may lay the charge on his own authority but if he is accused of a major offence then the officer must report to the commissioner who will decide whether a charge should be laid and, if so, what charge.
One other important and interesting development which I think the house will approve is that for the first time we are embodying in statutory form provisions establishing the rights of an accused member of the force with respect to his trial. At the present time his rights are left to the regulation or discretion of the officer conducting the trial. We are making an attempt here and I think a successful attempt, to write into the statute the rights of the accused with respect to the holding of his trial so that he will know and have in statutory form that protection which is also available to a person tried before the civil or criminal courts.
With regard to punishment we have specified clearly that disciplinary offences must be dealt with in the disciplinary courts of the service itself, but it is also proposed that where an offence partakes of the nature of a criminal offence and is, as it were, a mixed service and criminal offence, we will confer with the attorney-general of the province in which the offence is committed so that if it should be his desire that the matter should be

[Stage Direction]
proceeded with by way of a charge in the criminal courts of the province that desire can be taken account of.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, we have also provided in an entirely new feature of the legislation for the right of appeal by a member convicted of a disciplinary offence and have also provided for a board of review for those convicted of major offences. It is my view that this represents a substantial and important step forward in the bringing into line of the provisions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, in so far as organization and administration of the personnel are concerned and in so far as their code of discipline is concerned, with the conditions under which members of the force now serve and into line with the responsibilities which they must discharge, so that under the new act all members of the force and the country as a whole can feel that the best traditions of the force are being continued in the present age and carried forward into the future.
(Translation):
Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me to transgress the standing orders of the house in that I shall not be speaking from my place, but rather from here, where I find it easier to have a discussion with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) in connection with this bill.
As I said at the resolution stage with regard to the preceding item, we on this side of the house feel that it is good policy to separate the part dealing with administration and discipline from the part dealing with pensions for the R.C.M.P.
I have studied the bill quite closely. I have gone over it again and again, and I sincerely believe it is an improvement on the former provisions which, as the minister has emphasized, have been in force since 1874, though they have been amended from time to time over the years.
As regards the very organization of the force, I see no reason for objecting to this bill. Perhaps there may be a few minor points, which we shall be raising at the committee stage. We have no objection to voting for the principle of the bill.
I also note that there have been changes made in the second part of the bill, which deals with discipline; major and minor offences will be defined, as was pointed out a moment ago by the Minister of Justice.
As to the procedure that is being established by the bill, I believe it is sound. The government is to be specially commended for following the advice of the very officers of the force with regard to the institution of a right of appeal for all mem-

bers of the force who have been put on trial and who feel they have been wronged by the decision rendered by the officer in charge.
To sum up, we will vote in favour of the principle of the bill, and we shall certainly co-operate with the Minister of Justice to get through the second reading and also probably, through the committee stage in the course of the evening.
(Text):


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I was able to hear only a part of the statement made by the minister, but I can certainly approve of the objectives as he set them forth and particularly those changes which would make certain provisions applying to the R.C.M.P. more democratic. I had expected the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), who takes a great interest in mounted police matters, would be here at this time but because of other business he is unavoidably away from the chamber this afternoon.
We shall have a number of comments to make in the committee stage, and particularly we will question some of the provisions in the bill that seem rather harsh and which we think could be further liberalized. This is probably a particularly good year or particularly appropriate session in which to bring forward such a bill when the R.C.M.P. has been surrounded to some extent by rather widespread controversy. In a nation like ours we think any step forward toward bringing democracy and democratic procedures to the discliplinary measures in the R.C.M.P. and administrative measures is a step in the right direction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the bill carries, I should like to say a word both on my own behalf and on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) who, unfortunately, could not be here today. There are certain incidents which happened recently with respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which we, in this party, intend to debate on the minister's estimates. We think that a more appropriate time to do so than on the second reading of this bill. I wanted to make it very clear, for my own part and the Leader of the Opposition asked me to make it clear for his part, that the fact we were not debating these matters now does not mean we do not consider the matter one of the most important to be debated during this session of parliament.
With respect to one clause of the bill, because I, too, may not be here when we reach the clause, having to do with agreements with the provinces, we do think it

would be desirable for the minister to consider very carefully whether some changes should not be made in it to have parliament spell out precisely what the obligations are instead of leaving that for definition by the governor in council and in the contracts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if, in view of the fact we have made very good progress this afternoon we could call it six o'clock so there would be a continuous discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, would the minister indicate the major differences between the interpretation clause and the one in the former act?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think in the discussion on second reading I indicated the main differences between this bill and the former act. At that time I pointed out the main purposes of the bill were to streamline and modernize the provisions regarding the organization and administration of the force with respect to its personnel, and to modernize and bring up to date the provisions regarding the code of discipline of the force. I would think as we come to the specific clause that I could deal more intelligently with any points which hon. gentlemen care to raise at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Interpretation.
Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I did ask a question on clause 1 which I meant to ask on clause 2. Would the minister be kind enough to indicate to the committee the difference between clause 2 in this bill and section 2 in the former act, and give the reasons why some definitions are now omitted?


Edmund Davie Fulton: This bill, Mr. Chairman, as I explained, is a bill to streamline and modernize the provisions of the act, and it has been found with respect to clause 2, which is the interpretation clause of all bills, that there are a number of definitions that are not necessary to be placed in this clause. Some of them recur later; others are not 66968-9-2851



[Stage Direction]
necessary. If the hon. member would direct my attention to a specific point then I could probably deal with it, but in general I can only say that we have found these are the only definitions which it is necessary to insert at this point.
Gabriel Roberge: The one I am concerned with especially is in the former act, where there was a definition of the word "constable", and there is none in this bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The reason for that is that the two main differences which it is found desirable to continue are the differentiation between "officer" and between "member". "Constable" is a rank and not a status under the new act.


Gabriel Roberge: Clause 2 (c) defines the word "member" as a member of the force. Does that definition also include an officer?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. Officers are also members of the force, and if my friend refers to 2 (e) he will find that "officer" means a commissioned officer of the force. But both officers and all other ranks are members of the force.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask this question, more or less just as a matter of curiosity. Are there any warrant officers in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, we have no status or rank as such. There are officers, non-commissioned officers, and constables of various grades.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On Clause 4-Employment of force.
Mr. Godin:: Would the minister explain the great change in this clause as compared with the section in the previous act, especially the possibility of the governor in council directing the force to act outside of Canada? I feel this is so broad in its aspect and ramifications that it may involve the government of this country in matters which the cabinet alone should not deal with.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The fact is that the force is employed at present at many points outside Canada, and we felt it was desirable to regularize the situation in the new act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Commissioner.
Mr. Crestohl:: I would like to ask the minister whether the appointment of a commissioner is for a fixed term or for life, or is it at the pleasure of the governor in council?



Edmund Davie Fulton: The appointment of the commissioner is an appointment at the pleasure of the governor in council.


Gabriel Roberge: Was it the same under the former act?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The relevant provision of the former act was section 6 (1), which read:
The governor general may by commission appoint a commissioner of police, who shall be called the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and may also appoint by commission a financial comptroller of police.
There is no change in effect under the new bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister said that the tenure was at the pleasure of the governor in council. On what does he base that, since there are no express words?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is, as I understand it, an appointment at pleasure, subject of course to the fact that the commissioner is also an officer of the force, and his length of service and conditions as to retirement, and so on, are regulated by the general provisions of the force which are applicable in that regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the governor in
council retain a commissioner in the force without his being retained as commissioner? That is to say, if the governor in council was pleased to dispense with his services as commissioner, would he continue to be a member of the force?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think that is rather a hypothetical question. I would imagine that if the governor in council indicated that the services of the commissioner were no longer acceptable as such, the person holding that position would feel it incumbent upon himself to resign from the force.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not true, of course, in the case of chiefs of staff of the army or of the other armed forces.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That may be so.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Other officers.
Gabriel Roberge: Subclause (1), as the minister pointed out this afternoon on second reading, establishes a new rank, which is chief superintendent. Those officers, of course, are appointed by the governor in council. Then on subclause (2) it is said:
The maximum number of officers in each rank shall be as prescribed by the treasury board.
I wonder why in this subclause we see the words "treasury board" instead of "governor in council"?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I explained, as I recall it, on second reading that a number of the duties
[Mr. Crestohl.l
or functions which were formerly the obligation of the governor in council have been transferred to treasury board. As the hon. member knows, generally speaking the establishment of departments, and in this case of the R.C.M. Police, is an establishment approved by treasury board, and so it has been considered advisable to provide here that the establishment for officers shall similarly be approved by treasury board.
So it has been considered advisable to provide here that the establishment for officers shall similarly be approved by the treasury board. As I explained this afternoon, if at any time there were a difference of opinion between the police advisers and treasury board as to what should be the establishment of officers, it would be open to the minister to carry any unresolved conflict to the cabinet itself, that is to say to the governor in council, for resolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say
whether the establishment of the armed forces is determined by the treasury board or by the governor in council?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. I am afraid that I could not answer that question offhand. However, I would imagine that over-all decision rests with the governor in council, exactly as it does here, should there be any conflict.


Leon David Crestohl: Clause 6, subclause 3(a) provides that the governor in council may appoint persons to be officers. Will the minister kindly explain whether that means that the governor in council has authority to appoint persons from civilian life to be officers although they did not come up in the ranks of the force or is it restricted-"persons" there meaning in the general sense of human beings-to those coming up in the ranks?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The only answer I can give is that "persons" means anybody and the governor in council would be authorized to appoint somebody from outside the force to be an officer in the force if the governor in council saw fit to do so. For instance, I recall that on one occasion-and possibly it has happened on more than one occasion-persons from outside the force have been appointed to be commissioners of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That is true in the case of two commissioners, I am informed; but it would be an unusual practice. I cannot imagine the circumstances arising that would necessitate it, but they might; and it is thought desirable to retain that power in the governor in council.


Leon David Crestohl: Whilst there is on record the fact that two commissioners were appointed from civilian life, is there anything on record showing that officers of other ranks were

appointed from civilian life? I can see a difficulty developing there in the ranks themselves. Men who come up in the ranks would like to feel that they are given certain priority. However, if the section were to read that the governor in council may appoint commissioners from civilian life that might probably be more acceptable than to say they may appoint officers of all ranks from civilian life.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. member for Cartier has put his finger on an extremely important point. It appears to me-and I do not profess to know very much about the armed forces-that this gives a great deal more power to the governor in council than he has with regard to the civil service. This provision may be in the existing law, but that would not necessarily make it desirable. As I say, this seems to me to give a great deal more power certainly than the governor in council has in the case of the civil service. There does not seem to be any kind of provision here for any sort of merit system whatsoever.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out that under the provisions of the present act the power is equally wide or possibly wider.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not interested in that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It reads as follows:
6(2) The governor in council may by commission appoint a deputy commissioner and one or more assistant commissioners of police, one or more staff and other superintendents, and inspectors, detective inspectors, sub-inspectors, surgeons, assistant surgeons, veterinary surgeons and assistant veterinary surgeons of the force, and the governor in council may in any commission issued under the authority of this sub-section limit the time during which the same shall continue in force.
There is no limitation at the present time upon the ranks-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister has not dealt with my point at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no limitation upon the ranks or area from which the officers may be drawn. I am quite frank to admit that the same wide authority is continued under clause 3(a) of the present bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was what I pointed out to the minister when I first made my observation, namely that it appears to be the case in the existing law but that fact did not necessarily make it desirable in these modern times. We were given to understand on second reading that the purpose of this bill was to improve the present situation. We have the merit system in the public service. Certainly the government, from such experience as I had with governments, has not had the appointing of the officers in the



[Stage Direction]
armed forces. This seems to be a rather antiquated system. I do not suppose it operates in fact at all. I suppose practically all these appointments, except the very highest ones, are simply rubber stamped by the governor in council and it could not be otherwise. I am just wondering whether there is not a defect in the law here that ought to be remedied.
Edmund Davie Fulton: It is pointed out to me that, for instance, there might be a particularly outstanding provincial police officer whom it was desired to bring into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police but if we did not have such broad power it would not be possible to do so. May I also assure the hon. gentleman that this government does not rubber stamp things in the way the former government did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That rather cheap and
unworthy observation is not very becoming of the minister and it certainly was not called for at all. I might point out to the minister that if he would take the trouble to read the Civil Service Act he would find that provision is made in the Civil Service Act for the kind of exceptional cases he has in mind; and in order to deal with exceptional cases it is not necessary to have an unlimited system of patronage such as that which exists by law and which the government intends to perpetuate here.


Leon David Crestohl: Can the minister ascertain
from his officials whether, apart from the appointment of a commissioner on two occasions from civilian life, there is on record the appointment of officers of other ranks from civilian life.


Edmund Davie Fulton: From my own knowledge I
can think of one or more officers in a provincial police force who were brought in and appointed as officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I am assured by the officials in front of me that there have been many cases since 1932 of such appointments. But I am also assured that since 1932 such appointments have been confined to serving officers of other police forces.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 7-Other members.
Gabriel Roberge: I take it that the words "treasury board" in subclause 2 are there for the same purpose as in clause 6.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct.


Gabriel Roberge: Subclause 4 reads as follows:
The commissioner may appoint any member and any special constable appointed under section 10 to be a peace officer.
If I read this subclause in conjunction with clause 17, especially subclause 3 of



[Stage Direction]
clause 17, am I correct in saying that there is duplication? Under clause 17 (3) the commissioner may appoint every officer and every member to be a peace officer. It seems to me that subclause 4 in clause 7 is not useful.
John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to say exactly
the same thing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I have not followed
correctly the hon. member's question. The appointment of members to be peace officers is particularly important, as I understand it, throughout the northern territories. There are also cases where we appoint special constables and this is a power that is desirable in the event of unforeseen circumstances. We may have to appoint special constables and give them the power of peace officers. Perhaps I have not appreciated the hon. member's question.


Gabriel Roberge: I agree with the minister's statement. I have no quarrel with giving to the commissioner power to appoint members or special constables as peace officers. However, what I said was that under clause 17(3) of the bill before us the same power is given as is given in clause 7(4). I should like to know the difference.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think my hon. friend is quite correct because clause 7(3) and (4) authorize the commissioner to appoint any member or any special constable as a peace officer. Clause 17(3) makes it clear that any person appointed has his powers in every part of Canada. They are complementary clauses. One does not repeat the other. One provides for the appointment of peace officers and the other makes it clear that these officers so appointed have their powers in all parts of Canada.


Gabriel Roberge: Clause 17, subclause 3 provides that every officer and every member appointed by the commissioner to be a peace officer has all the powers, authorities, protection and privileges that a peace officer has by law and is a peace officer in every part of Canada. I do not really see the difference.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can only repeat again that clause 7 gives to the commissioner the authority to appoint members as peace officers. Clause 17, subclause 3 makes clear what are the powers of persons so appointed to be peace officers and also makes clear that they have their power and authority in every part of Canada.


Gabriel Roberge: I have no further objection to that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

On clause 10-Supernumerary special constables.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this clause is headed "Supernumerary Special Constables". My first question is why this superfluity of language? This seems to be rather a cumbersome title for special constables.
The clause goes on to state that the commissioner may appoint without pay special constables supernumerary to the strength of the force. What would be the purpose of appointing supernumerary special constables? Under what circumstances would people be appointed without pay? One can hardly understand that persons would act in that capacity for any period of time without receiving some remuneration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The reason for the terminology is that such special constables are supernumerary to the establishment of the force and they are special constables of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police so appointed under such circumstances as railway constables who may be supernumerary special constables of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or under special circumstances Indian affairs constables, or constables appointed to carry out the duties of the Indian affairs branch with respect to Indian reservations.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The words in which I was interested are "without pay" in the first line.
I want to know under what circumstances people would act as constables without pay.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am told that the principle there is that all men so appointed are also employees of such people as railway companies or the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Therefore we designate them as supernumerary special constables in order that they have the necessary authority but it is not necessary to duplicate their pay.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does that mean that a Canadian Pacific Railway Company constable could be appointed a supernumerary special constable and would have the authority of a Royal Canadian Mounted Police constable wearing the uniform of the C.P.R.?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. I am told that he may be employed as a supernumerary special constable but he has only the powers and authority of a peace officer throughout Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not a member of the legal profession. What does that mean, only the power and authority of a peace officer?


Edmund Davie Fulton: He has the power to make arrests between one province and another and has such authority as is not held by a person who is not a peace officer.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What companies in Canada are granted the privilege of having their constables made a special part of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am informed that only two companies have this duty-not privilege. These are the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways. These are the only two companies that may employ a supernumerary special constable. In addition there is the Indian affairs branch.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Do these constables wear a badge to designate their appointment or do they have a card of identification? A person might object to being arrested by a C.P.R. constable but might acquiesce if arrested by a supernumerary special constable of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am informed they have no badge but a certificate of identification.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On their person?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, it is their duty to carry it on their person, I am informed.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister made reference to employees of the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Is there anything new proposed in the bill in this respect irrespective of the type of employee of the Indian affairs branch empowered with the prerogatives of a peace officer?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no change between clause 10 and section 8, subsection 6 of the present act. There is some shortening of the language but if hon. members take time to compare the two they will find the provisions are identical.


William Moore Benidickson: Is there a particular type of employee of the Indian affairs branch that is given this prerogative?


Edmund Davie Fulton: They are designated as Indian constables of the reserves and the Indian affairs branch asks us to designate certain personnel of that branch as constables.


William Moore Benidickson: Does the minister contemplate any particular enlargement in the number of people that will be so designated in the department?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 11-Civilian staff.
Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman the explanatory notes indicate that this is new. I heard the minister comment on this clause this afternoon. I would like to know whether civilian



[Stage Direction]
employees are hired by the force directly or under the Civil Service Act as it now stands?
Edmund Davie Fulton: At the present time there are four categories of employee working in or with the force. There are the regular members, special constables, employed civilians and civil servants. There has developed an increasing tendency to intermingle the four groups and particularly the regular members, special constables and employed civilians have been intermingled in the technical and specialized personnel. This has led to a great deal of confusion and some difficulties as between these various types of employees. It is desired now to regularize the situation so that authority for the appointment of technical and specialized personnel under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will be so regulated that such personnel may be ranked with uniformed personnel as members of the force subject to special instructions to be set out in the regulations with the same stated conditions and benefits.
The object of the legislation is to divide all personnel working with the force into two broad groups: First, enforcement personnel consisting of those employed, or likely to be employed, on duties requiring the status of a peace officer, and those include members of the force and special supernumerary constables. The second broad group is civilian personnel who will be those employed on the specialized clerical or maintenance duties and requiring qualifications other than those of peace officers. And these will be broadly speaking, as I said this afternoon, civil service members employed with the force and such prevailing rate employees as are authorized from time to time by treasury board.


Gabriel Roberge: I understand that. What I want to know is this. Are the civilian employees under the present act, not under the bill, hired through the civil service commission or directly by the force?


Edmund Davie Fulton: They are hired directly by the force. The civil service commission, however, sets their rates of pay.


Gabriel Roberge: There is no application to the civil service commission or il n'y a pas de concours?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no competition. There are not the usual civil service procedures followed, I understand. Under the new arrangement that will be done; but civilian members working with the force will be regular civil servants. With regard to prevailing rate employees, they will not be regular civil servants; they may be taken on and



[Stage Direction]
let out casually but their establishment, the numbers who may be employed, will be set by the treasury board.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Is any provision being
made to protect the status of the existing members of the staff; that is to say, to integrate them into the civil service?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That, I understand, is done under the R.C.M. Police superannuation bill that we-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the civilian staff be covered by that legislation or by the Civil Service Act, since those people are civil servants?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The civil servants will be
covered by the Public Service Superannuation Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister has not got my question. There are a certain number of civilian employees now. The minister told my friend from Megantic that those employees had been hired by the force; therefore, they are not in the civil service. Now, it is usual in legislation of this sort, of which we have had many examples in the last 15 years, in the integrating of a group of employees into the civil service, to put some provision in the legislation to protect the status and indeed to integrate those people into the civil service and give them the status of civil servants. There does not seem to be anything in this legislation. I wonder whether the minister will take a look at that and see if it should not be done?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the hon. member has a point. I will be glad to look at it to see if it requires an amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could we not let this clause stand?


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McGee):: Is it
agreed to let this clause stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 11 stands.
On clause 12-Reserve.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, I am rather interested in this. I have a number of friends who are members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police reserve and I was wondering whether the minister might give an idea as to the functions and duties of this group? The reason I am asking is that I know how much work the reserve officers I know put into training with the R.C.M. Police. I am wondering whether they are being utilized to the full and the advantage that may be taken of them?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, broadly speaking, their duties are described as to be of assistance to the regular members of the R.C.M. Police in the event of any situation arising where they would be of assistance and their services were utilized on such an occasion, for instance, at the Quebec conference which required a large number of trained and qualified personnel which could not be met from the members of the force.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 13-Tenure of officers.
John Whitney Pickersgill: From the explanatory notes
1	have no doubt that this is what the law is now, but I wonder whether this is what the law should be in the second half of the twentieth century, or whether the minister would not consider, or has not already considered, whether he should not substitute "good behaviour" for "during pleasure"?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, that has been considered and it is not considered advisable to do so because this is a disciplinary force, and to administer the discipline and maintain the integrity of the force it is considered that the clause in its present form should remain.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the minister's attention to subclause
2	of clause 13, which reads in part:
Every member other than an officer shall upon appointment sign articles of engagement for a term of service not exceeding five years-
This means that anyone who applies to be a constable and his application is accepted has to join for a term of five years. That is quite proper. However, the clause states that such a member may be dismissed or discharged by the commissioner at any time before the expiration of his term of engagement. It says nothing about his being discharged peremptorily or for cause. As the clause reads now, while there is a contract between the force and the member, it is only a unilateral contract. I can understand that a young man would enlist for a term of five years and feel secure, that he has an appointment for five years and that he cannot be dismissed just at the will of the commissioner; but the clause should state that he can be dismissed for cause or for some other reason, but not a peremptory dismissal. Does the minister not think that the clause needs to be changed to clear up such an unusual situation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not. As I have already explained, in addition to the requirements of discipline, there are a number of special circumstances that may arise such as medical disqualification that comes immediately to mind, unsuitability not

connected with any disciplinary offence or an offence against the regulations; a variety of reasons why it is desirable to terminate the services of a member of the force.


Leon David Crestohl: I thoroughly agree with that.
I think the clause should state something to that effect, and say that a constable under those circumstances may be dismissed for cause.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The difficulty there is that-and that is the reason why the broad powers are left-if there is the requirement of assigning a cause it usually ends up as a blot on the man's record.


Leon David Crestohl: A cause such as ill health?


Edmund Davie Fulton: He would still have to have a finding of his physical condition which makes it impossible for him to continue as a member of the force. On the basis of my knowledge of the way the act is administered I am quite convinced that this is the proper way to keep the power of the commissioner to dispense with the services of members of the force, and it is very often in the member's own interest. In addition, I would point out that there is a maximum period of five years and members may purchase their discharge within that period.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say I have listened with greater astonishment than I have listened to anything since the present government took office to the words we have just heard from the Minister of Justice because what he has said is precisely what I used to say about not giving the reasons for not allowing persons who had no right to come into Canada to come into Canada. The minister sat over here on this side of the house day after day when my estimates were up during the time I was in office and complained about the denial of human rights because we would not give the reason why we did not let people come into Canada as immigrants. But here we are dealing with Canadians serving in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and he objects to having the words "for cause" in case it might be embarrassing or be a blot on their record.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister would
let me finish.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is so absurd it is not necessary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one great difference between the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance. When the Minister of Finance meets an argument to which he knows of no reply he describes it as nonsense, when



[Stage Direction]
the Minister of Justice meets a similar argument he calls it absurd, but neither of these expletives is a reply to an argument.
I may say that I think there is a good deal in what the minister has said, just as I was quite convinced and am still convinced that the position I took with respect to this matter when I was minister of citizenship and immigration was a correct position, and I notice that the present government has not changed it. But it does come rather strangely from the minister to hear him say that Canadian citizens serving in the force, their livelihood depending upon their service, may be dismissed without any cause being given.
Edmund Davie Fulton: After that tirade I would point out that there are two great differences. First, with respect to service offences we have, unlike our predecessors, provided for an appeal procedure, which is something my hon. friend refused to do when he was minister of citizenship and immigration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That, of course-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will my hon. friend let me finish now? The other point is that the two situations are entirely different. In the one we are dealing with the rights of Canadian citizens as Canadian citizens. Here we are dealing with people who have enlisted voluntarily in a force and subjected themselves to a code of service discipline which, of course, is something I do not think my hon. friend would appreciate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I say that the minister is wrong on both counts. The appeal procedure which I set up when I was minister is the only appeal procedure which exists in the department.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What that has to do with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act I do not quite understand.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There has been no change whatsoever. I have inquired repeatedly and the appeal procedure I established is still there. It deals with appeals from landed immigrants and it does not deal with appeals from visitors.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, the only way to arrest this outflow of ebullience is to raise a point of order-


Frank Charles McGee: Is the
minister rising on a point of order?


Lionel Chevrier: He does not know what he is rising on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister is the essence of politeness.



[Stage Direction]
The Aciing Chairman (Mr. McGee): Order. Is the Minister of Justice rising on a point of order?
Lionel Chevrier: He does not know.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, I was, and I know rather better than my hon. friend.


Lionel Chevrier: Let us see whether you do.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend seems to have got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. I have not taken issue with him. I do not know what my hon. friend is getting so exercised about.


Lionel Chevrier: I am getting exercised about your uncouthness.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are getting exercised all right. I fail to see what the appeal procedure or any other procedure under the Immigration Act has to do with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act which we are discussing clause by clause at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order, I did not begin to discuss the appeal board. It was the hon. gentleman who brought up the subject and I was merely replying to his observations and not going one iota beyond that, nor do I desire to. I now desire to deal with the other misstatement of the minister and I will not go beyond it either. The minister said that in the one case we were dealing with Canadian citizens. The fact of the matter is that we were dealing with nonCanadian citizens, foreigners who desired to come to this country, become immigrants and settlers and possibly citizens, so the minister is wrong about that.
(Translation):


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to give the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) the opportunity to practise his French a little. I shall therefore ask my question in French.
Section 13, subsection 2, decrees that the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may dismiss or discharge a member of the force for various reasons. I wonder if the minister could tell us if there may be an appeal against the commissioner's decision and, if so, why it should not be included in this section.
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: Dismissal, as I have mentioned before, may be upon a number of grounds such as medical unfitness or possibly conviction of a criminal offence. Those are two which come more readily to mind. Any person who feels himself unfairly dismissed from the force may, of course, appeal to the commissioner for a review of the dismissal. The appeal procedure is provided in a later clause of the bill.

(Translation):


Mr. Denis:: Mr. Chairman, in order to give the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) a chance to practise his knowledge of French, I shall make a remark in my own language.
The only objection which the minister seems to have against inserting the words "dismissal for cause" in this section, seems to be that he wants to enable the commissioner to dismiss an officer without cause, for no cause whatsoever! Does the hon. minister not give too much latitude to the commissioner in this way? Let us, for instance, suppose that some day or other, the commissioner feels irritated with an officer. Then, according to this section, he might, without any reason, dismiss that officer though the latter may have signed up for five years.
As I understand it, the expression "engagement for a term of 5 years" does not mean very much, because 24 hours after a man has signed up, the commissioner may, under section 13, for no cause whatsoever, dismiss an officer who thought he was engaged for a period of 5 years.
I fail to understand why the words "for cause" could not be inserted in subsection 2 of section 13. You might mention any reason: because of illness, of politics, because of disability or incompetence; but, to my mind, the expression "for cause" would be enough to allow a commissioner to dismiss such and such an officer it would also give the opposition an opportunity to ask why such and such a person had been dismissed from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to obtain an answer.
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much indeed the opportunity I am being given to exercise my French but since I do not have sufficient command of that language to answer extemporaneously and at length perhaps my hon. friend will forgive me if I take advantage of the simultaneous translation system to answer in my own language.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: He is getting lazy.
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: The commissioner must always give the reason for dismissal. That is the first point on which my hon. friend is incorrect. The commissioner cannot dismiss on the ground of whim or fancy without assigning a reason. The reason would be because of medical unfitness or because of conviction for this or that offence. The commissioner does not just make a ruling that the man is dismissed. As I have said, a man is entitled to request a review and on such a review there should be reasons given for his dismissal.

Furthermore, while there is no great importance attached to it, in order to keep the record straight I should point out that, as I understood the translation, my hon. friend used the word officer as though to suggest the commissioner could dismiss an officer under these circumstances. I point out that the provision of the clause makes it clear that the powers of dismissal of the commissioner under this clause are confined to members of the force.


Osias.-J. Godin: "Member" seems to be defined to include an officer as well, according to the new definition as it has been explained. Therefore, it could apply to both.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, if my hon. friend will look at subclause 2 he will see that it says:
Unless appointed for temporary duty, every member other than an officer shall upon appointment sign articles of engagement for a term of service not exceeding five years, but any such member may be dismissed or discharged by the commissioner at any time before the expiration of his term of engagement.
The reference is to "any such member".


Augustin Brassard: The Minister of Justice was very kind in making what he thought was a reply to my question, but he did not give an answer to my query. I asked him why there was no mention in subclause 2 of clause 13 of the fact there would be an appeal from the decision of the commissioner. Of course, I do not expect that there would be an appeal for health reasons, but for any other reason I do not see why the subclause should not mention that there would be an appeal. The minister did not answer my query about that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is covered in the standing orders.


Leon David Crestohl: The minister quite properly explained that the commissioner would not dismiss anyone without cause. He cited some of the reasons why the commissioner might dismiss a constable. If that is the case, and I certainly think it is, why should the bill not say that the commissioner may dismiss a constable, either for cause in a general sense, or for certain specific reasons? A constable is bound by a contract for five years, which he signs, and I think he should be entitled to some protection if he is to be dismissed for what he may believe is an improper cause.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out to the hon. gentleman that while there is an agreement that the constable signs for a term of five years, a constable has a right to purchase his discharge. This happens with regularity.


Leon David Crestohl: Just what does that mean, he can purchase his discharge?



Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand they pay a tariff, if you want to call it that, of $5 a month for the unexpired portion of their term of service. After all, a constable has received a certain amount of expensive training at the taxpayers' expense. It is therefore considered undesirable that he should be allowed to break his contract without penalty, and this is a relatively minor penalty.
The situation, therefore, is not entirely unfair to the constable. I am sure my hon. friend will appreciate, and hon. members who have asked this question will appreciate, that where you have a disciplined force such as this force is and must be on every term of engagement there is what I might call a period of experiment. It may well be found that either the member does not like the force and the conditions of service to which he has bound himself, and he is allowed to purchase his discharge, or that the officers in charge of the force find that, while this was a worthwhile experiment, unfortunately so-and-so is not going to make out well as a constable of the R. C. M. Police. Therefore, rather than have some formal hearing with disciplinary charges, in the sense my hon. friends seem to want to force on us, the commissioner, upon the report of duly qualified officers, makes a finding that this man is unlikely to become a useful member of the force so he dismisses the man from the force. There is no blot on the man's character or record. There is no trial such as would have to be held if the commissioner had to assign a cause. It has been invariably found in organizations of this nature that that is the best way to arrange a separation from the force, and particularly from a force of this kind and character.


Louis Fortin: Should an applicant be under 21 years of age, for instance, would the force require additional signatures from the parents or tutor of the applicant?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I am informed that is not necessary. Perhaps I could supplement the answer I gave earlier with regard to appeals. I said they were covered in standing orders, and I have here paragraph 140 of the rules, regulations and orders of the R.C.M.P. It reads:
If any member of the force, other than a commissioned officer, should feel himself aggrieved by a recommendation made for his dismissal or discharge from the force, or by a conviction and punishment awarded him under the provisions of section 31 of the act, he may, within 48 hours, appeal to the commissioner in writing, stating in detail his reasons for making such appeal.


Paul Joseph James Martin: After listening to the minister one would conclude that his interpretation of the clause means that a dismissal or discharge must follow an act by



[Stage Direction]
the commissioner himself. I call the minister's attention to the words in the second subclause, "any such member may be dismissed", but subclause 1 provides that officers of the force hold office during the pleasure of the governor in council.
Now, the commissioner obviously is not the only one who can dismiss the policeman; it must be that the governor in council has authority under this clause to provide for a dismissal. It is one thing to dismiss a police officer at the instance of the commissioner and even there, as hon. members on this side have argued, that dismissal must be with cause, but surely any action taken by the governor in council certainly ought to be on the basis of cause and on the basis of reasons given. There is nothing in this clause that would restrict the governor in council from exercising powers which he may want to exercise for one reason or another. The officer in question may have taken some action that is contrary to what the government feels, in its interests, should have been taken, or for some reason or another may want to dismiss the policeman. If there is strong ground, as I believe there is, for arguing that no dismissal by the commissioner shall take place without cause, I submit that there is a much stronger argument for insisting that whatever action may be taken by the governor in council must be taken with cause.
The minister may argue that subclause 1 does not mean what I say it means, namely that the governor in council is not given any powers under this clause to dismiss the individual concerned. However, subclause 1 can only have one meaning, that is that the governor in council has authority to dismiss. I suggest that the Minister of Justice, with his well known love for safeguarding the individual and the subject, should not in this particular instance endow the governor in council with powers which, when the minister sat on this side, he was so fond of reminding us the governor in council should not possess.
Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I move the
following amendment:
That paragraph (2) of clause 13 be amended by adding after the word "discharged" in the fourth line thereof the words "for cause".


Frank Charles McGee: Is the
house ready for the question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think I must say, simply on the basis of the discussion so far, that no good reason has been advanced for the insertion of those words. I point out that the insertion of such words would make it impossible to dismiss a man

by reason of medical unfitness or other physical disqualifications; they are wide enough to make it impossible to discharge such persons. Therefore I must oppose the amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister give consideration to the suggestion I made? Does he think it has any merit? If not, will he say so with his characteristic peremptory quality?


Mr. Creaghan:: Mr. Chairman, may I have a word on this amendment? I have been somewhat concerned with this clause but I cannot agree that the amendment would have the effect of creating any problem, as I see it. Certainly the commissioner, as the officer in charge of a police force, must have a great deal of authority over his men, similar to that we expect to see in other government departments. My opposition to the clause as it was originally drafted is that I believe senior members of the force should be given some protection, and if the minister will consider adding the word "first" in the fifth line, it would then read:
-the commissioner at any time before the expiration of his first term of engagement.
In other words, if a man is found unacceptable, that fact would become known during his first five years of engagement, and I think the minister should give some consideration to limiting the commissioner's powers by leaving him the authority, providing it is restricted to the first five years of service.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member who has just resumed his seat would move an amendment to that effect, I would be pleased to second it.


Frank Charles McGee: I think we should dispose of the amendment before the committee before proceeding to any discussion on other proposed amendments.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am just
getting up to repeat the remarks of the hon. member for Cartier. We would be very pleased to second such an amendment if it were moved at the appropriate time.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, if I may say a word on this amendment, cannot the minister give some better reason than he has already advanced for opposing the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. Denis? After all, it seems it is not a word which is superfluous. The minister has said that he would be precluded from dismissing someone because of medical unfitness, but it seems to me that does not apply because "for cause" certainly would cover medical unfitness. I

wonder whether the minister would reconsider the position which he took and perhaps accept the amendment as it is?


Mr. Montgomery:: Mr. Chairman, just in
case this comes to a vote, I want to put myself on record as being against any such amendment. Any member who has any experience with a disciplinary force would not want that amendment and would not want those words in there. So I for one will vote against the amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I have been
asked a direct question, and I think I would have to rest upon the provisions of paragraph 140 of the standing orders, which I have already read and I will now read again. It provides that any member who feels himself aggrieved by a recommendation made for his dismissal or discharge may within forty-eight hours appeal to the commissioner in writing stating in detail the reasons for making such appeal.
I have indicated that in my view the standards of conduct of this force and the standards of discipline and of honour insisted upon by the officers in charge of the force are such that to vary this provision would strike a serious blow at the whole standing of the force. I have been at pains to explain that it is not a one-sided situation. A man who joins the force and finds he does not like the code of discipline, or any other aspect of the service, may without any grievous penalty sever himself from the service. By the same token I think it must be left available to those in charge of the administration of this force, if they find a man not suitable for the standards of physical, moral or other disciplinary conduct which they lay down to say, "Well, we regret you are not able to make the grade, and therefore without any blot on your service or any formal inquiry or charge being laid we dispense with your services."
To accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member would mean that there would have to be an inquiry, as I understand it, of a formal charge, and therefore a man whose severance from the force would be in the best interests of all concerned could not go out except upon the basis of having a blot on his record. I think that would be a very undesirable and unfortunate principle to introduce into the code of service of a force such as the R.C.M. Police.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister has made a very sound, logical and plausible explanation, but I would like to refer to section 140 of the standing orders which he read, when he spoke about the right of an appeal. Does that also apply to all constables of the force, or to officers only?



Edmund Davie Fulton: That applies to any member who feels himself aggrieved by a recommendation made for his dismissal. It applies to members other than commissioned officers.


Gabriel Roberge: Is it not a fact that these regulations from which the minister quoted are regulations which may change from time to time, and therefore would the minister not consider adding the words "for cause" in the bill?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Regulations are made and published only with the authority and approval of the governor in council.


Gabriel Roberge: But they may be changed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, they may be changed, it it is true, but only with the approval of the governor in council.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to this discussion very carefully and listened to the minister's explanation, but I cannot yet see why he cannot accept the amendment. Because even if a person were dismissed or discharged for cause, that cause may be illness or unsuitability, and the language of the bill is quite fair to the individual and would not necessarily mean, as far as I can see, a blot upon his character.


Azellus Denis: Any good cause.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Frank Charles McGee: Is
the committee ready for the question?
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, before the question is put, I would like to point out to the minister that he has not answered the question of the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge). The hon. member for Megantic would like to know if regulations are not changed from time to time. The minister answered that they were, but subject to the assent of the governor in council. Even if such changes are subject to the assent of the governor in council, it remains that regulations are changed from time to time, and that they can do what they want.
I shall therefore ask the minister to give us some explanation on this matter.
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Question. Question.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: No, Mr. Chairman, I want an answer to my question and I wish to point out that the minister has not answered the question of the hon. member for Megantic.
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Question.



Augustin Brassard: No. I want an
answer to my question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I had not understood that
the hon. gentleman was asking a question. I understood him to be making an observation. His observation was that he did not agree with what I said or that he did not like it. I am sorry, but I do not attempt to dictate the hon. member's likes and dislikes. If he does not agree with what I have said, I am sorry about it, but that fact does not cause me to change my opinion. This matter has been carefully considered. This is a provision that has been in the legislation for some time. It is a matter about which I have concerned myself for some time in order to assure that there is no unfairness. It is safeguarded in the regulations. It is true that the regulations may be changed with the approval of the governor in council.
I do not think I can do any more than I have already done by way of explanation of the reason for this provision.
My hon. friend wants to insert the words "for cause". I pointed out that the words "for cause" have a definite meaning in law. That meaning in law goes far beyond the type of situation which may arise under which it is in the best interests both of the individual concerned and the force itself that he should be separated from the force. I am sorry, but with the best will in the world may I say that I cannot accept the amendment because, in my submission, it strikes at the very roots of what we describe as a disciplined force. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment.


Frank Charles McGee: Is the
committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Denis) negatived: Yeas, 19; nays, 72.


Frank Charles McGee: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 13 carry?


Gabriel Roberge: On clause 13(1) may I say this. We have heard the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Essex East urging the minister to change the wording of that subclause inasmuch as we should like to have the officers appointed during good behaviour instead of during the pleasure of the governor in council. I therefore move the following amendment:
That subsection 1 of section 13 be amended by deleting the words "the pleasure of the governor in council" and by inserting after the word "during" the words "good behaviour".


Frank Charles McGee: The
committee has heard the question.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Frank Charles McGee: Is the
committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Roberge) negatived: Yeas, 18; nays, 73.


Frank Charles McGee: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 13 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
On clause 15-Oath.
Gabriel Roberge: Is there any difference between this clause 15 and the former section 15 of the act?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the two are exactly the same. Clause 15(1) and (2) are exactly the same as section 15(1) and (2) of the present act.


Gabriel Roberge: Subclause 3 is deleted?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes; clause 3 is deleted.


Leon David Crestohl: An officer or constable must take two oaths. One is the oath of allegiance and the other is an oath of office. That requirement, I imagine, indicates in this indirect fashion that only a British subject can be a member of the force. Am I right in my understanding?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct.


Leon David Crestohl: Then can the minister inform the committee whether the force sometimes avails itself of the services of men who are not even residents of Canada?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the force makes use, particularly in overseas posts, of civilian employees who of course are not members of the force. My hon. friend will note that this clause relates only to members of the force. It is only members of the force who are required to take these two oaths.


Leon David Crestohl: Would those persons take only one oath?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. They are not members of the force at all.


Leon David Crestohl: Do they take any oath?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Those civil servants, of course, would be required to comply with whatever provisions are laid down in the Civil Service Act. This clause relates only to members of the force.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 16-Authority where commissioner absent.
Gabriel Roberge: I note that in section 11 of the former act there is only one paragraph.

In this clause there are two paragraphs. Will the minister indicate the substantial difference, if any?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the only difference is the addition in subclause 2 which provides that in the event the commissioner and all the deputy commissioners are absent or unable to act the senior assistant commissioner is granted control and management of the force for the time being. This is a provision added out of an abundance of caution in case the rare event should happen that all the officers mentioned in subclause 1, who are the same officers mentioned in section 11 of the old act, should be absent or unable to act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 17-Justices and peace officers.
Gabriel Roberge: I take it this is almost the same as section 12 of the present act except that the phrasing is different?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
On clause 19-Municipal by-laws.
Gabriel Roberge: Would the minister consider standing this clause together with clause 20 as agreed before recess?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman. That was an arrangement I made with my hon. friends and particularly at the request of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who has to be absent this evening. I agreed that if we reached these two clauses we would request the committee to allow them to stand.


Frank Charles McGee: Is it
the pleasure of the committee to give unanimous consent to allowing clauses 19 and 20 to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clauses 19 and 20 stand.
Clauses 21 to 24 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 25-Offences.


Gabriel Roberge: This is a long clause containing a number of subclauses. Would the minister indicate subclause by subclause if there are substantial changes from the present act?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The offences provided by the present act which have been eliminated from the proposed bill are subclauses (c), (d), (m), (n), (s), (v), (w) and (x). I should point out that all the subclauses I have referred to, although they do not appear in the new clause 25, are made minor offences. The



[Stage Direction]
intention is to include them in the regulations. I explained this afternoon that only those offences outlined in the act from now on will be regarded as major offences. All offences against provisions of the regulations and standing orders will be regarded as minor offences. We have removed from the act the subclauses I have mentioned but they will be reincorporated in the standing orders and regulations and any infraction thereof will be a minor offence from there on.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have two questions to ask the minister. The first is with respect to subclause (d) which reads:
Every member who-
(d) directly or indirectly receives or solicits any gratuity or reward without permission of the commissioner; or any bribe.
This seems a rather immoral clause. Under what circumstances would the commissioner of mounted police instruct a member of the force to receive a bribe?
Subclause (j) reads:
Every person who-
(j) makes an anonymous complaint to the commissioner or to the government of Canada or any province or any department thereof, or to any minister of the crown or member of parliament or a provincial legislature;
Would that subclause include a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who was a constituent of a member of parliament who might wish to write a letter to his member of parliament about a matter that concerned him?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I regret to say I do not understand the hon. member's question. I understood him to raise a question concerning subclause (d) and he concluded by asking about members of the force who write to their members of parliament. I do not understand the connection.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I know the microphone does not work very well in this corner and possibly I am not working very well either. Would subclause (j) prevent a member of the force writing to his member of parliament about a matter that concerned him?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think that is quite clear, yes. That has been a long standing provision of the act with regard to members of the force.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does that mean a member of the force could not write to his member of parliament about some legislation about which he was concerned not connected with his duties as a member of the force or with the present act?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Surely it is quite clear that if the member of the force signs his name then



[Stage Direction]
there is no offence. The offence here lies in making an anonymous complaint.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is the information I sought.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, who would be prosecuted for writing an anonymous letter?


Edmund Davie Fulton: A member of the force who was detected in that course of conduct.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister did not fully answer my question as far as I could hear. With respect to subclause (d) under what circumstances would the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police give a member of the force permission to take bribes?


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend will know that he has misread the subclause. It reads:
Every member who-
(d) directly or indirectly receives or solicits any gratuity or reward without permission of the commissioner, or any bribe;
Therefore the permission of the commissioner can relate only to the receiving of a gratuity or a reward. It is obvious from the wording of the subclause that the permission of the commissioner could not relate to the receiving of a bribe.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.
On clause 28-Custody.
Gabriel Roberge: In subclause 2 of clause 28 I note for the first time in the bill before us there is reference to a commanding officer. Would the minister explain exactly what is meant by a commanding officer?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The commanding officer would be the senior officer at the divisional or subdivisional level.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Subclauses 29 to 33 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 34-Trial.
Gabriel Roberge: Subclause 3 of clause 34 reads:
An accused may be represented and assisted at his trial by another member and if the accused requests that he be so represented and assisted, his request shall be granted.
Will the minister consider allowing a member of the force, or an officer to be represented by a lawyer at his trial at his own expense?


Edmund Davie Fulton: This was considered and discussed with the commissioner but it is considered it would not be feasible to permit members of the force on trial within the force to be represented by a lawyer, because of the nature of the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence. It might well

be that the circumstances of the offence were ;uch that they could not be divulged to another person not a member of the force.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, if I am not wrong, there are some lawyers within the force.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are some members of the force who have been trained, yes.


Gabriel Roberge: Who are lawyers or who have legal training. Would it not be a good thing to put in this clause:
An accused may be represented and assisted at his trial by another member who has legal training.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The subclause says:
An accused may be represented and assisted at his trial by another member and if the accused requests that he be so represented and assisted, his request shall be granted.
And certainly every effort will be made. I would think that-unless there was some absolute physical impossibility-if the member specified any member of the force who was a lawyer, that request would be granted if at all physically possible.


Gabriel Roberge: This clause shall be construed in such a way that the accused member has a choice of the member who can assist him?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, within the limits of the exigencies of the circumstances.


Louis Fortin: The subclause reads:
The accused shall be brought before the officer who is to try the offence.
I should like to know-
(Translation):
-if the rank of officers is considered? Is it a senior officer who hears those cases or any other designated officer?
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the case of a major offence, it would be an officer especially designated by the officer to try the offence. In the case of a minor offence, it would be any commanding officer, any officer at the divisional or subdivisional level; but in the case of a major offence, it would obviously be a very senior officer who would be appointed as the officer to hold the trial.


Louis Fortin: Would this senior officer be an officer trained in legal matters, a lawyer, or a man who had some training in law?


Edmund Davie Fulton: He would be an officer who had been thoroughly and completely trained in police matters and, as a result of that training and experience in such matters, would have acquired a good deal of legal knowledge, because my hon. friend will appreciate that a good deal of the training of R.C.M. Police members-and officers are promoted from members-indeed all R.C.M. Police officers have to know how to conduct trials or to conduct cases before the courts of the land

and therefore, in the course of that experience, such an officer would acquire a great deal of practical legal knowledge.


Mr. Forgie:: Subclause 3 says:
An accused may be represented and assisted at his trial by another member.
There is nothing in this subclause to prevent an accused from employing a solicitor or a lawyer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The subclause merely provides that an accused may be represented and assisted by another member of the force.


James Moffat Forgie: That is not what it says. It says:
An accused may be represented and assisted at his trial by another member and if the accused requests that he be so represented and assisted, his request shall be granted.
This does not preclude the appointment of a solicitor to appear on his behalf, surely.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It does preclude the appointment of a solicitor who is not a member of the force because, as I pointed out, there are a number of members of the force, and there will be increasing numbers, who also have legal qualifications.


Leon David Crestohl: This is rather a difficult clause. Is defence counsel especially assigned to a member who is under an accusation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No defence counsel in the ordinary sense of the word, if my hon. friend is using the expression to mean lawyers retained from outside of the force. I have explained that a member may be represented and assisted by another member of the force if he desires, but because of the nature of the information that may be involved in the charge and in the surrounding circumstances, it is simply not possible to provide generally that members charged with an offence may be represented by counsel from outside the force.


Leon David Crestohl: I understand that very well; it is quite right, but does the force not appoint a defence counsel to give the accused the benefit of having the best legal service which he may desire, assuming that there is no member of the force who has legal training? Is he then left without any legal services? I understand that in the army and in the air force outside counsel are appointed. I can understand why outside counsel should not be brought into this, but certainly the force should have men trained in the law who can appear in a court which is the equivalent of a court martial, since it is a trial by officers of the force. Adequate defence counsel should be provided.



Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sure that my hon. friend, with his broad experience, must have seen many occasions when members, sergeants, staff sergeants and even corporals and the like, have appeared and conducted themselves very competently in the criminal courts of the land. As I said, in addition to that, which is a normal part of police training and usage, and which is the basis on which our members get much experience in court work, we have a number, and the number will increase, of members of the force who are qualified as solicitors, but they are also members of the force. I make this general observation now. The legislation provides that a member charged with an offence under this clause may be represented and assisted by a member if he so requests. The member must still specify the other member who he wishes to have assist him, and in every case, unless it is a physical impossibility, that request will be complied with.


Leon David Crestohl: Is the other member of the service so requested duty bound to accept the brief in advance?


Edmund Davie Fulton: He would be detailed.


Mr. Hanbidge:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether this is something new, because I remember appearing for a mounted policeman about 25 or 30 years ago when he was charged?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The provision is new, yes. As I said this afternoon, we have provided something new here; thus, we have written into the legislation and given a statutory basis for the rights of the member of the force charged with an offence under the act. This is the first time this has been done.


Robert Leith Hanbidge: So far as the penalty or punishment is concerned, would the minister be in favour of saying that the accused constable would have the right to the best legal assistance he could get?


Edmund Davie Fulton: From among the force, yes. That is provided here.


Robert Leith Hanbidge: That is just within the force.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, for the reasons that I have explained. We have plenty of members in the force who have very extensive legal experience.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 35-Sentences.
Gabriel Roberge: When I was in the army a soldier who was tried could address the court after he was found guilty and before sentence was passed. Was a like system studied by the force in connection with this clause?



[Stage Direction]
Clause 35 provides that if the presiding officer finds the accused guilty of the offence he may sentence the accused to punishment. There is no provision for the accused to have the opportunity to address the trial officer in order to seek a lighter sentence.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I think this must be read with the preceding section which says that an accused may be represented and assisted at his trial by another member. I would think it would be most unusual if the presiding officer did not give the accused or his representative the right to address the court before sentence was passed. It will be noted that we have provided in subclause 6 of clause 34-again this is new because we felt it appropriate to write it into the act for the first time-that the rules of evidence at a trial shall be the same as those followed in proceedings under the Criminal Code, and while it is not specified here I think it would be normal that the presiding officer would grant that right. I would suggest that if we find that at such trials these rights are not given we would then consider the necessity of writing it into the act, but certainly it would be our view that all those procedures normally followed at criminal trials should be followed in trials under this part.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to express the same fear as has been expressed by the member who spoke before the minister. Under this clause the presiding officer is prosecutor, judge and jury. The minister suggests that if they find from experience that this does not work they will consider remedying it but I think this sort of thing should be written into the legislation in order to protect the rights of the individual rather than wait for experience to prove it necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 36-Punishment for major offence.
Mr. Maloney:: Mr. Chairman, with respect to clause 36, subclause 1, I wonder whether the minister, through his advisers, could furnish us with any information at all, even approximately, as to the number, if any, of members of the force who were punished by imprisonment within the last two or three years.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am told that I am on dangerous ground in giving any estimate at all but that it would be not more than five in a year out of a force of some 5,500.


Arthur Edward Martin Maloney: What I really wanted to know was whether there in fact had been any and that answers my question. It strikes me, with great respect, that the vesting of the power of imprisonment in officials such as presiding

officers, untrained as they would be in the law and having in mind the fact that the accused has not the benefit of any real counsel for the defence in the sense of counsel at the bar, has potential dangers inherent in it. The powers seem to be akin to the powers conferred upon the military, which, of course is understandable, but which I dislike to see imported into an organization such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Would the minister consider the possibility of studying the matter I have raised with a view, at some later date, to conferring back upon the courts the power that this section vests in a presiding officer?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the feeling behind my hon. friend's remarks. I point out to him that this whole group of sections constitutes, in so far as procedure is concerned, a broadening of the powers of review and a liberalizing of the procedures which have hitherto been applicable. I point out to my hon. friend that clause 36 to which he has referred relates only to major service offences. The penalties outlined in the clause are no more severe than those which have hitherto been applicable for such offences and it is provided by a later clause, because of the very thoughts which the hon. member has expressed, that every such sentence shall now be subject to review by a board of review. This is quite new. The board of review is appointed by the minister and every such sentence, no matter what the actual nature may be, whether it be a term of imprisonment or a fine or loss of pay, is now subject to review by a board of review which is a procedure not previously available to the convicted person. We have taken a very appreciable step forward toward ensuring that there will not be an arbitrary, unjustified and harsh sentence imposed not warranted by the nature of the offence.


Leon David Crestohl: Can the minister tell the committee whether the procedure would be the same in the event of a capital offence within the ranks of the force?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That would be a criminal offence and without question would be tried in the criminal courts. We would not attempt to try that by a service court.


Leon David Crestohl: Even though the offence was committed within the ranks? There would be no fear that some evidence might be disclosed which the force would not want disclosed?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We would not have any jurisdiction. The only offences which we have jurisdiction to try in the service court are those enumerated in clause 25 and murder is not one of them.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.

On clause 37-Damage or restitution.
Gabriel Roberge: Subclause 4 of clause 37 reads as follows:
Where a person has been convicted of a service offence, the officer presiding at the trial may order that any article by means of which the offence was committed be forfeited, and any article so ordered to be forfeited may be disposed of as the commissioner directs, but any money-
This is the part I am concerned with.
-or the proceeds of any property shall be paid into the consolidated revenue fund.
This clause deals with money raised by disposing of property. Under subclause 3 of clause 23 a benefit trust fund is established. I wonder why under this clause the money should be paid to the consolidated revenue fund while under the other clause it is paid to the benefit trust fund.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The reason is that the benefit trust fund is a very ancient and well established fund of the force into which are paid the amounts specified in clause 23 which sets it up. Actually it does not set it up but continues it from the former act. Subclause 4 of clause 37 is a new provision and relates to property that has been used for the commission of a crime. It is considered hardly appropriate that the moneys, if any, recovered from the disposition of such property should be paid into the benefit trust fund but rather should be paid into the consolidated revenue fund. It is not one of the items considered as an appropriate source of moneys to be paid into the benefit trust fund.


Gabriel Roberge: Inasmuch as the fees, costs and fines paid by the accused are paid into the benefit trust fund, why should the money received from the disposition of property not go there?


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I said, I do not believe it is an entirely appropriate source of revenue for the benefit trust fund. I, and certainly the officers of the R.C.M. Police, are anxious to see the benefit trust fund swell. If the hon. member could carry his point with the treasury board, I would be happy to see it. We have had some difficulty with treasury board in having the benefit trust fund continued at all, so we thought this sort of money should be contributed to the consolidated revenue fund.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 38 to 40, inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 41-Appeal.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This clause 41 reads:
A member who has been convicted of an offence under this part shall be furnished with a written transcript of the evidence at the trial if he so requests, and he may within forty-eight hours after the receipt of the written transcript, appeal to the



[Stage Direction]
commissioner by serving on the officer who presided at the trial or on the member's commanding officer, a written notice of appeal setting forth the grounds upon which the appeal is made.
My question is this: Here, after a member can be held, according to the act, at least 30 days before he is tried-
Edmund Davie Fulton: No, we have cut that down, as I explained this afternoon. We have cut down the time within which he can be held without trial, and I think it is 8 days now.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I apologize to the minister.
I was in a committee this afternoon and did not hear that. My point is that the 48 hours seems a very short time for a man to have to prepare his appeal. He may not be able to get the evidence together; he may not be able to get the matter prepared and there may be certain circumstances that delay him. It does seem to me that 48 hours is a very short time in which to allow a man to prepare his appeal under this clause. I should like to ask the minister the reason for the short period of 48 hours, and his comments?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think what my hon. friend does not appreciate is that there is a substantial difference between the notice of appeal and the appeal itself. This is only the notice of appeal and it sets forth the grounds upon which the appeal is made. It is not an elaborate document. It is usually a document of not more than half a page, so it is not difficult for a member to prepare a short statement setting out that he appeals and a summary of the grounds upon which he appeals. It has not been the experience to date anyway that 48 hours is an unreasonably short time within which to require that notice be served.


Gabriel Roberge: On that very point raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West, I may say that I had the same thing in mind that 48 hours would not be enough time to allow an accused member to give his notice of appeal. The accused member may be far away in the north or at some remote detachment or he may be sick and the mail delivery may not function properly, not because of the minister but because of the temperature.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I can set my hon. friend's mind at rest. Trials for service offences would be held at division or subdivision headquarters. They would not be held away out at a detachment post in the wilderness, in the Arctic, so the affected member would still be at subdivision headquarters.


Gabriel Roberge: That is quite true, and I agree with that. If the trial is held at a subdivision office, the member may be only reprimanded, he may only lose seniority, and then



[Stage Direction]
rejoin his old post which may be far away from headquarters. He would receive the written transcript of the evidence there, and he would still have only 48 hours. He would be far away from the subdivision office. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment. I move:
That clause 41 be amended by substituting the words "eight days" for the words "forty-eight hours" in line 4 thereof.
Frank Charles McGee: The
committee has heard the amendment. Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Roberge) negatived: yeas, 16; nays, 51.


Frank Charles McGee: Shall clause 41 carry?


Leon David Crestohl: Would the minister accept this compromise to satisfy the difficulty that the clause creates? I can understand that a notice of appeal should be given as quickly as possible, and 48 hours appears to be reasonable.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would be willing to accept 96 hours.


Leon David Crestohl: I want to go beyond that. I want to ask the minister whether he could not leave the 48 hours or 96 hours for the notice of appeal and allow 8 days for the reasons for appeal. It is a simple thing to give a notice of appeal and to say, "I desire to appeal". It is a much more difficult thing to set forth in that document the reasons for your appeal. The reasons given in the document might afterwards be held against the appellant. The appellant may want the benefit of counsel to discuss his reasons for appeal.
If the minister would, therefore, leave the time for notice of appeal at a reasonable period, 48 hours or 96 hours, and would allow the man at least 8 days to submit his grounds for appeal, this might be a reasonable compromise.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think my hon. friend is also guilty of confusing the notice of appeal and the argument of the appeal itself. I am sure my hon. friend has had broad experience as counsel on appeal cases. I must say that my experience has been that one of the easiest things to draw is a notice of appeal. You simply put in everything you can think of and a lot of things you know you will
not rely upon at the hearing of the appeal itself. Then, you send it off. There is not all that difficulty to which my hon. friend refers in filing a notice of appeal, stating briefly the grounds upon which the appeal is based. This is quite a different thing from preparing the case for appeal for which a great deal more time is required and will be given.


Leon David Crestohl: I would agree with the minister if we are dealing with a man who had the benefit of counsel all the time. If that were the case, the minister would be right. I am not confusing the notice of appeal with the grounds for appeal. Here, what is required within the 48 hours is not only giving notice but also setting up your grounds for appeal. This is a very unusual thing for a constable to be able to do as efficiently as it should be done in order to have a proper defence on the appeal.


Gabriel Roberge: I have noted that the minister said he would be agreeable to changing the 48 hours to 96 hours. We, on this side of the house, would accept that if the minister would have an amendment moved.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps we could stand this clause and go on to the next one.


Gabriel Roberge: May I call it 10 o'clock?


Frank Charles McGee: Shall clause 41 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.


Frank Charles McGee: Shall
clause 42 carry?


Gabriel Roberge: It is ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister what the business is for tomorrow, and would he give us also the agenda for Thursday and Friday?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker tomorrow we shall take the estimates of the Department of Transport, and following that the estimates of the Department of Justice.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on June 2, 1959.