1961-06-12

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the house has received from the chief electoral officer certificates of election and return of two members, namely Mrs. Margaret Mary Macdonald, for the electoral district of Kings, and George Louis Chatterton, for the electoral district of Esquimalt-Saanich.



TABLING OF LETTER OF THANKS FROM PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES

Mr. Speaker:: By leave of the house I should like to table a letter of thanks received from the President of the United States just before I left for the recent visit of parliamentarians to Washington. I think perhaps hon. members would like to hear the expression of appreciation.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The letter reads as follows: Dear Mr. Speaker:
The high point of my recent visit to Ottawa was the opportunity so generously accorded me to address the distinguished members of the Canadian parliament in the chamber of the House of Commons. Such an opportunity comes to few men and I am most grateful for it. I think the occasion was highly symbolic-and as such should be well noted throughout the world-of the splendid relationship enjoyed between your country and mine. In addition to registering my thanks for being invited to speak before parliament, I must add that I thoroughly enjoyed the experience.
Please accept my great appreciation for the very great consideration shown to my wife and myself during our visit to Ottawa. I note that you will be coming to Washington soon with other Canadian members of the United States-Canadian parliamentary group, and I hope to have the chance to thank you personally for your friendliness during my visit to Ottawa.
Sincerely,
John F. Kennedy.



VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of standing committee on veterans affairs-Mr. Montgomery.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, for some time representatives of the Canadian and United States governments have been working on an agreement relating to the defence of Canada, more particularly to air defence and to the Canada-United States production sharing program. The objective of such an agreement was to reflect the desire of both governments to ensure more effective use of the productive capacities, skills and resources of each country and at the same time to demonstrate our mutual determination to improve the defensive strength of NATO and particularly of NORAD under it.
An agreement has now been concluded which contains three major terms, all of which are closely interrelated.
(1)	By the terms of the Pine Tree line agreement of 1951, and a further agreement of 1955, responsibility for the Pine Tree line was divided between the two governments. Canada will assume responsibilities hitherto resting on the United States under these agreements for manning, operation, maintenance and financing 16 stations of this line. The take-over of these stations will begin immediately and will be carried out as fast as possible having regard to the R.C.A.F.'s capacity to assume these additional responsibilities, and will be so phased as to maintain the efficiency and effectiveness of the line.
(2)	In consideration of the financial and other benefits which will accrue to the United States as a result of Canada's assumption of additional responsibilities under the Pine Tree agreements, Canada will be furnished with 66 F-101B interceptor aircraft and appropriate support equipment. These aircraft, title to which will be vested in Canada, will be armed with conventional weapons and will serve to re-equip R.C.A.F. squadrons allocated to NORAD and will be operated in accordance with NORAD plans. As aircraft are already in existence, being the latest of that series off the production line, deliveries will commence immediately
6180	HOUSE OF
Canada-U.S. Air Defence Sharing and will be phased in accordance with the R.C.A.F.'s ability to absorb them.
The cost of spare parts, flight simulators and related equipment for these aircraft will be shared on the basis of the United States paying two thirds and Canada paying one third. The cost of the armament to be obtained for the aircraft will be shared on the same basis.
(3)	The United States agrees to the procurement in Canada of a number of F-104G aircraft, associated support equipment and initial spares to the total value of $200 million, of which the United States share will be $150 million and the Canadian share $50 million.
Mr. Speaker, I shall be asking leave at the conclusion of my remarks to table copies of the exchange of notes and the memorandum of understanding. So that the acting leader of the opposition and the acting leader of the C.C.F. party will have these notes and documents available now, I am sending them copies.
The aircraft procured will enable Canada and the United States to make a significant contribution to the collective strength of NATO under their respective mutual aid and defence assistance programs. The deliveries of these aircraft are to begin in mid-1963 following the completion of production of the aircraft of this type ordered for the first Canadian air division in Europe. It is anticipated that deliveries will be made at the approximate rate of 48 aircraft per year and will continue until the said sum of $200 million has been expended.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement, representing as it does an important and constructive development in Canada's defence relations with the United States, is futher evidence of the determination of both countries to maintain the operational effectiveness of the North American air defence system. It will make a significant contribution to the security of North America and to the European area of NATO as well.
I would stress that the approach of both governments has not been based on narrow self-interest but reflects a genuine effort to find a way for each to co-operate with the other, to the benefit not only of both but of mutual allies as well. The letter which we have just heard read from the President of the United States is the epitome of the relationship which is embodied in the agreement entered into.
The agreement is therefore more than just a bilateral agreement. It expresses the desire to make common use of those resources which each possesses and which can be made available for the benefit of each other and


our partners in NATO in the pursuit of peace, and makes possible a more substantial contribution toward the security of the west than could be made by either government acting alone.
Despite past indications and the widely accepted views of military staffs in the western world, and statements of Russian leaders too to the effect that the U.S.S.R. was completely replacing bomber aircraft with missiles, it has not done so and is continuing to maintain a large and effective fleet of bombers. Indeed, the experience of all the nations in the western world has been that widespread changes have had to be made in plans, and various armaments have had to be discarded as events have altered decisions previously made and as the U.S.S.R. has changed or has departed from anticipated courses of action.
The Canadian government has done much to support disarmament, but recent world events re-emphasize that the U.S.S.R. is obviously not of that mind. In the days ahead we shall continue the representations which have been made in the past. Indeed, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will leave tomorrow for Geneva. At the same time we must realize that there is no survival in adopting the attitude that if Canada does not maintain her most effective defences her people will thereby escape havoc and destruction should war come. Canada, in common with the other nations of the free world, must therefore continue to maintain its defences.
Now I ask leave to table the exchange of notes and the memorandum of understanding in both languages.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement the Prime Minister has just made is an important one, and I am sure it will be welcomed by the country at large. The Prime Minister has divided his announcement into three parts. He has referred first to the assumption by Canada of the Pine Tree line and the 16 stations, in consideration for which Canada will get the 66 Voodoo fighters for certain purposes. Third, the United States agrees to procure from Canada 200 F-104G aircraft to the value of roughly $200 million.
In so far as the general purport of the Prime Minister's statement is concerned, I say at once that we on this side of the house welcome it. However, there are certain aspects on which I should like to comment briefly. I feel that so far as the F-101 jet fighter, the Voodoo, is concerned, we on this side are glad to see this replacement. We think it is a worth-while replacement; we should have this

aircraft in order to allow the R.C.A.F. to control and maintain sovereignty over Canadian skies.
In so far as the cost is concerned, that is another matter. If we add into the deal the cost of the operation and maintenance of the Pine Tree line, this amount will be but a down payment on the triangular deal.
In so far as the deal itself is concerned, I cannot refrain from making this comment; that if the government had put as much effort into selling the Avro Arrow, which was the most advanced interceptor in the western world, we might have been successful in achieving this agreement much earlier. It is unfortunate that the effort was put into selling the United States plane, even though it is extremely helpful that a substantial part will be purchased from Canadair of Montreal and the Orenda engines from Toronto and Malton as well. It seems to us if that had been done and much more effort had been put into trying to sell the Canadian plane, our research and development in Canada should not have suffered.
The original deal, sir, included, I believe, a triangular exchange of the CL-44, which is built by Canadair in Montreal, for the F-101. It seems to us on this side of the house that deal would have been more advantageous than the one which has been announced. We regret that because of this long procrastination on the part of the government it has taken now many, many months, running into several years-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have not restricted the hon. member's comments which, to some extent, approach a debate. However, I think if he proceeds, using words such as "procrastination", he will definitely be entering a debate.


John George Diefenbaker: There must be a reply, too.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to relevant comment, but to make such reservation of approval as he sees fit, reserving his right to debate the matter later.


Lionel Chevrier: I say to Your Honour that in the course of my remarks I have tried to be as objective as possible. I have stated we are supporting and approving the deal. I have stated also, sir, in accordance with the rights of the opposition, that there are certain shortcomings in the deal. If I have used any-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is entitled to comment, of course, but the distinction I ask him to preserve is between factual disagreements with the policy announced and to refrain from the accusation
12.	1961
Canada-U.S. Air Defence Sharing charged which is implicit in the use of a word such as "procrastination". If the hon. member can walk that narrow path he will be in accordance with our better practice.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I shall keep away from the use of that very bad word. Perhaps I may use the word "delay" and say there has been, it seems to us, a great deal of delay.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the hon. gentleman saying these things, but I am going to ask for the right to reply.


Lionel Chevrier: If I understand-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not wish to establish a new practice. In this house we have followed a course permitting the government to make factual statements in respect of policy or administrative action, as in this case, as well as allowing comment from the opposition without thereby entering into a debate. This practice is not easy to apply or to follow. When it is clear that a statement is for the information of this house and is presented here rather than having hon. members of this house receive the information elsewhere, the right of comment is very limited, and if the comment goes beyond that limitation or tends to enter into the realm of the making of assertions of a controversial character which no hon. member could expect to leave unchallenged, then the problem is presented that the government inevitably seeks the right to comment on that sort of statement.
It has not been the practice to permit the minister to reply. I have indicated that where, in the course of comments from the opposition a statement has been misinterpreted it is an inherent right of the minister as it would be of any member whose statement had been misinterpreted to seek to correct the misinterpretation by an explanation. But I would not like to see the practice develop, unless by consent of the house, of replying in kind to remarks which have been improperly permitted to go on the record. Therefore I trust that the hon. member for Laurier will not put the Prime Minister, who made the statement, in the position of having either to leave the accusation stand or ask to initiate a new practice.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that my comments were fair, and I ask permission to complete the remarks which I intended to make. They are these. While we are glad to know that the government has taken belated action in respect of this deal, which is four years old, we are sorry that the exchange could not have been more beneficial to Canada.

Canada-U.S. Air Defence Sharing
In so far as the financial aspects and implications of the deal are concerned, namely their effect on the treasury and the economy of the country, I think we shall have to look carefully at the deal itself, and perhaps when the estimates of the Department of National Defence are up for consideration we shall then have an opportunity to deal more extensively with the matter.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as the representative of a group which has a great respect for our parliamentary institutions I shall do the best I can to properly walk the tight rope of parliamentary procedure and propriety at this time.
I thank the Prime Minister for sending over this correspondence and memorandum of understanding. Of course he will understand that we have only a few minutes to glance at it. The announcement he has just made is very important, involved and complicated; therefore I am sure the house will understand that we shall require time to study it fully and appreciate all its implications. We shall take that time, Mr. Speaker, and deal with the matter fully on the defence estimates.
However, I do want to say-and may I say I am speaking personally now, without consultation with my colleagues-that this has wider implications. In view of the cancellation of the contract with the Avro people, a British firm, to their great cost and inconvenience, and in view of our present relations with Great Britain and concern over the common market and so on, I think this has broader implications than are confined just to this straight matter of the announcement and the issue at stake. I trust that members of our group will deal with those general and broader aspects on the appropriate estimates.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Laurier mentioned that I had said there would be 200 F-104G's involved in the deal. That I did not mention. I do not wish to enter into a debate, but the statement made in comparing this deal with the Avro matter cannot pass unchallenged. There has been no delay or procrastination.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: No one would buy the Avro. That is the reason it was not sold. We endeavoured everywhere to sell it but the cost was prohibitive.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. After listening to what Your Honour had to say about the practice that you did not wish to see develop, does Your Honour not think the situation might

well and effectively be dealt with if the government would follow the practice of its predecessor and give the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other parties some indication, at least some reasonable length of time before the house opens, as to what the government proposes to discuss? Of course, to present an invalued proposed agreement half way through a statement by the Prime Minister is an affront to this house.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking me a question. I am not here to answer questions of that kind. The hon. gentleman has not raised a valid point of order.
The practice is that new information is brought to the house in this way. It is brought by way of information rather than by way of discussion. I think on both sides the normal practice has been exceeded. Perhaps it would be advantageous for the committee on procedure to have a look at this practice, which is one which creates problems for the Chair from time to time.
If the statement is purely factual-and in this case there was, in addition to the statement, some discussion-then I should think that opposition members should limit their remarks to purely factual statements. When statements of opinion are added, on both sides, it is very difficult to restrict discussion. I hope that hon. members on both sides will consider that matter, and I hope the committee on procedure will also consider the problem that arises.



BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-106, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act (Instalment Purchases).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to establish a difference in the controls that are used as between the selling of straight mortgages and the selling of chattel mortgages. What we have done in this bill is to apply to the Bills of Exchange Act the regulations that now apply under the Patent Act. Those regulations have worked effectively in Canada and have been copied in other countries throughout the world. The application of these regulations to the Bills of Exchange Act will have the similar effect of providing protection and eliminating abuses under this act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Inquiries of the Ministry
WAR MEASURES ACT	Mr. Chevrier: When?



ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND RECOMMEND CHANGES

[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
June 9-The Prime Minister-The following proposed motion:-
That a special committee be appointed to consider and recommend changes that may be desirable in the War Measures Act;
That the committee consist of fifteen members to be designated by the house;
That the committee be empowered to sit during the sittings of the house;
That the committee have power to send for persons and papers;
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as it may deem advisable and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation to the printing thereof; and
That the committee be empowered to report from time to time.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day.


Mr. Churchill:: Next sitting of the house.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 144-Mr. Pigeon:
For a copy of the contract, correspondence, and other documents exchanged between the Canadian National authorities and the Meunerie Cooperative de Joliette (Joliette Co-operative Flour Mill), following the acquisition by, or rental to, the Meunerie Cooperative de Joliette, of the Canadian National property.
Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether my hon. friend would agree to let this motion stand.


Mr. Pigeon:: I agree.
Motion stands..



EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether the hon. gentleman has anything to report on his proposal to the British government that a meeting of the commonwealth prime ministers be held to discuss Britain's entry into the common market?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to report at this time. I will possibly make a statement tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: Tomorrow.



REPORTED STATEMENT BY ONTARIO CABINET MEMBER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["Mr. Speaker, I expect to be attending the conference at Geneva dealing with the situation in Laos. As a result of the discussions between the United Kingdom and the Soviet co-chairmen yesterday this conference resumed its work this morning. The co-chairmen at the same time reiterated their appeal of April 24 to the parties in Laos to co-operate with the international supervisory commission in effecting control over the cease fire. As yet there has been no reaction by the parties in Laos to the commission's letter of June 8 expressing serious concern at the violation of the cease fire and announcing its intention to visit a number of trouble\n[Mr. Hees.)", "spots and to report to the co-chairmen. A preliminary report setting out the commission's proposal to the parties has already been forwarded to the co-chairmen.\nIn the meantime, I believe that the princes heading the three principal parties in Laos have arranged to meet tomorrow at Zurich for talks about the political questions connected with the settlement of the Laotian question.\nIf as a result of these various developments the cease fire is made more effective, the conference may then be expected to turn to the detailed consideration of the proposals which have been put before us relating to the international aspects of the Laotian problem. Canada, of course, is very much concerned about this problem of long term arrangements, and we shall be making our representations from time to time."]
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce based on a statement reported to have been made by Hon. J. Wilfrid Spooner, minister of lands and forests of the province of Ontario. I wish to quote the statement because it causes some eyebrow raising, to say the least. The statement reads in part:
Canada needs more salesmen in Europe, lands and forests minister J. Wilfrid Spooner said yesterday following a tour of the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, West Germany, the Soviet union, Sweden and Finland.
He said Canada's trade representatives should intensify their activities. In his view, these officials are highly qualified but are hampered by a shortage of staff and inadequate facilities.
Would the minister inform the house whether, in his opinion, his department has the number of trade representatives with adequate facilities necessary to satisfactorily promote the sale of Canadian products abroad?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask the question. I have checked into the matter, and I understand that Mr. Spooner was referring to the commercial representatives of commercial companies which he felt were in greater need in the markets in which he had been travelling.
With regard to our own trade commissioners, permit me to say that we have 120 commissioners presently stationed abroad in 62 posts in 48 countries. Their offices are located in the principal commercial centres of the world. The record indicates that these men are well trained, enthusiastic and effective. The annual report of my department for the year 1960 records that their joint efforts influenced more than $100 million worth of new export business for Canada in that year.
May I also remind the house of the effective trade promotion work that these officers have carried out in consequence of the export trade promotion conference held in Ottawa last December. I regularly receive letters of commendation from Canadian businessmen who indicate that they are getting the trade promotional assistance from the trade commissioner service of which they stand in need.
The service recruits new officers annually. Seven young men are in the last weeks of

Inquiries of the Ministry their training now and will be going to their first posts by early autumn. Twelve new recruits are about to report for training. With these young men we will be able to strengthen posts which need additional officers; equally, we will be able to open new posts where this is warranted. In the last 18 months we have been able to open four new posts at Canberra, Moscow, Lagos and Philadelphia. I believe that the record of new business influences, the approbation of Canadian exporters, and the international reputation of the Canadian trade commissioner service indicate that it is meeting its responsibilities.
With regard to greater efforts being made abroad by the sales representatives of commercial firms in Canada, I agree with Mr. Spooner that there are tremendous additional sales opportunities for many of our products in the markets of the world. I believe that, and I have urged continually upon Canadian firms which produce goods for which there is a market abroad that they intensify their selling efforts in these potential markets.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question arising in part out of the Prime Minister's statement of a few moments ago. When the Prime Minister referred to disarmament and the difficulties attending that problem, he indicated that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was going to leave tomorrow for Europe. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs say whether he is leaving for the purpose of attending unexpected disarmament discussions, or for the purpose of attending the conference in Geneva dealing with the situation in Laos? In the latter event, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs give the house a report as to the Laotian situation as he now sees it?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be attending the conference at Geneva dealing with the situation in Laos. As a result of the discussions between the United Kingdom and the Soviet co-chairmen yesterday this conference resumed its work this morning. The co-chairmen at the same time reiterated their appeal of April 24 to the parties in Laos to co-operate with the international supervisory commission in effecting control over the cease fire. As yet there has been no reaction by the parties in Laos to the commission's letter of June 8 expressing serious concern at the violation of the cease fire and announcing its intention to visit a number of trouble
[Mr. Hees.)

spots and to report to the co-chairmen. A preliminary report setting out the commission's proposal to the parties has already been forwarded to the co-chairmen.
In the meantime, I believe that the princes heading the three principal parties in Laos have arranged to meet tomorrow at Zurich for talks about the political questions connected with the settlement of the Laotian question.
If as a result of these various developments the cease fire is made more effective, the conference may then be expected to turn to the detailed consideration of the proposals which have been put before us relating to the international aspects of the Laotian problem. Canada, of course, is very much concerned about this problem of long term arrangements, and we shall be making our representations from time to time.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Now that another week in June has gone by, has the minister yet set a date for the budget?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker. It will not be possible to bring in the budget this week, but I hope soon to be in a position to announce the date to the house.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister received an offer from the Canadian lakehead exhibition to the effect that they would welcome the establishment of an artillery unit within the grounds of the exhibition? Can the minister inform the house whether such a unit is now being contemplated?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: I do not recall receiving any such communication from Fort William, Mr. Speaker, and I have no knowledge that the creation of such a unit is under consideration, although that may well be the case. I would have to inquire into that matter and give an answer later as far as the latter part of the question is concerned.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

Léon Balcer: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-98, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-"Builder's mortgage".


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister make a statement in connection with the further discussion of this bill?


Léon Balcer: I made quite a lengthy presentation on second reading of this bill. The bill was sent to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, where many experts appeared as witnesses. I had four or five of my officials who with myself answered many questions. Also a representative of the pilots appeared as a witness and was questioned, as well as a representative of the guild, Mr. Langlois, who appeared also as a witness. In the committee an extensive study was made of the bill clause by clause, so at the present time I do not intend to add to what I said earlier.


Lionel Chevrier: There are many objectionable features to this bill which were brought to the attention of the minister during the sittings of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and I should like to deal with them now. They have to do with exemption from payment of pilotage dues of United States vessels moving in the pilotage district from Montreal to Cornwall-St. Regis, giving the United States vessels a privilege which they do not possess under the treaties signed between Canada and the United States over the years. There is the question of sovereignty involved in this matter, wherein I believe Canada is ceding to United States vessels sovereignty in purely Canadian waters, and there is also involved a question of safety in navigation.
In order to put the matter in perspective I think I should say there are seven groups of pilots established on the Seaway. There are four groups, totalling 200, whose territories cover purely Canadian waters. There are the groups in the Quebec district which involves an area from Quebec to tide water; in the Montreal district, which involves an area from Montreal to Quebec; in the harbour of Montreal; and fourth, in the Cornwall district, which is the pilotage district established last November by the Department of Transport and which extends from Montreal to Cornwall-St. Regis.
Then there are three other groups totalling 92 men whose territories cover international waters. They are the three districts known as
Canada Shipping Act
international pilotage districts: district No. 1, Cornwall to Kingston; district No. 2, Welland canal and waters connecting lakes Erie and Huron; and district No. 3, waters connecting lakes Huron and Superior.
Beginning May 1 of this year the so-called great lakes pilotage regulations which have been worked out over two years of negotiation between Canada and the United States, came into effect. I refer here to the act which was passed last year and which is known as chapter 40 of the Statutes of Canada 8 and 9 Elizabeth II, 1960, which established part VIa of the Canada Shipping Act and set up what is known as great lakes pilotage.
What is rather astounding to me is that this was done after an agreement had been entered into between the Minister of Transport acting on behalf of Canada and the secretary of commerce of the United States. This agreement was signed by the present Minister of Transport on May 1, 1961 and by the secretary of commerce of the United States on April 28, 1961. It is strange that in this agreement, which covers the whole field in the great lakes, no mention whatsoever is made of the exemption from payment of pilotage dues in the area from Montreal to Cornwall-St. Regis.
In order to bring the matter, as I think it should be brought, to the attention of the committee, it is necessary to point out that what is being sought here is this. Perhaps I should just put on the record again what is demanded by the government through the Department of Transport, namely that ships registered in Canada or the United States whose operations are upon the great lakes, or between ports in the great lakes and the St. Lawrence river, or whose operations are primarily as described in subparagraph 1 and which make occasional voyages to ports in the maritime provinces of Canada while operating in any pilotage district on the St. Lawrence river above the pilotage district of Montreal, shall be exempt from the payment of pilotage dues.
As was stated in the committee, this has the same meaning and effect as the exemption from compulsory pilotage. Therefore this means that United States ships travelling in the Montreal-Cornwall-St. Regis district will be exempt from the payment of pilotage dues. In other words, it will not be necessary for them to have a Canadian pilot on board. They may, if they wish, take one on, but there is no obligation so to do, and the masters and mates of those vessels may, if they so desire, take the ship right through.
I say, first of all, that this is an infringement upon the sovereign rights of Canada in these international waters. In so stating I should like to make brief reference to the

Canada Shipping Act
manner in which this whole subject was dealt with by treaty. I refer to the evidence given by Dr. Skelton, former deputy minister of external affairs, before a committee of the other place dealing with the development and improvement of the St. Lawrence river. This evidence can be found in the proceedings of a special committee of the other place in 1928. Dr. Skelton was giving evidence before that committee, and he dealt with the various treaties covering this matter. I refer to page 70 of those proceedings and I quote Dr. Skelton's words:
Coming then to the treaties dealing with the St. Lawrence, we begin, of course, with the treaty of 1783, ending the war of American independence. It was there provided, you will recall, that the boundary between the United States and Canada was to run along the 45th parallel-
That is the 45th parallel of latitude:
-until it struck the St. Lawrence and was to follow the middle of the river St. Lawrence up to lake Ontario.
There was some dispute about the line, which I need not go into now. Then Dr. Skelton went on:
Now, the next treaty point to which I need refer is the Ashburton-Webster treaty of 1842 ... Article 7 of the Ashburton-Webster treaty reads as follows:
"It is further agreed, that the channels in the river St. Lawrence on both sides of the Long Sault islands and of Barnhart island, the channels in the river Detroit, on both sides of the island Bois Blanc, and between that island and both the Canadian and American shores, and all the several channels and passages between the various islands lying near the junction of the river St. Clair with the lake of that name, shall be equally free and open to the ships, vessels and boats of both parties."
Dr. Skelton went on to deal with the treaty of Washington which was passed in 1871, article 26 of which reads as follows:
The navigation of the river St. Lawrence, ascending and descending from the 45th parallel of north latitude, where it ceases to form the boundary between the two countries, from, to, and into the sea, shall forever remain free and open for the purposes of commerce to the citizens of the United States, subject to any laws and regulations of Great Britain or of the dominion of Canada, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation.
Then Dr. Skelton said:
That is from Cornwall to St. Regis. The second paragraph of the same article provides:
I will not read it because it deals with rivers other than the St. Lawrence. Until the treaty of 1871 there was never any question of conferring on United States citizens any rights below the Cornwall-St. Regis line. Then we come to the boundary waters treaty of 1909, the preliminary article of which reads as follows:
For the purposes of this treaty boundary waters are defined as the waters from main shore to main shore of the lakes and rivers and connecting waterways, or the portions thereof, along which the international boundary between the United States and the Dominion of Canada passes, including all

bays, arms and inlets thereof, but not including tributary waters which in their natural channels would flow into such lakes, rivers and waterways, or waters flowing from such lakes, rivers, and waterways, or the waters of rivers flowing across the boundary.
Then Dr. Skelton added this significant statement:
Now, there may be boundary waters to which article 1 specifically applies. Boundary waters roughly include part of the St. John river, the Ste. Croix river, the St. Lawrence river from Cornwall to lake Ontario-
That is above, but not below. He was asked this significant question by Hon. Mr. Reid:
But would not include from Cornwall to the sea?
Dr. Skelton: It would not, senator.
So I say all the rights which have been given by treaty to United States vessels and United States citizens have to do with international sections of the river, that is from the Cornwall-St. Regis line, the international boundary line, up to the head of the great lakes; but the area from the Cornwall-St. Regis line down to the gulf has been considered through the years to be purely Canadian waters.
What is being done here is to enact a bill by way of an amendment to a section which has the effect of a treaty giving rights to United States vessels which they do not possess today. What we are doing, sir, is abandoning to the United States our right to insist that their ships be piloted by Canadian pilots in an important and costly section of the St. Lawrence river. Furthermore, we are abandoning our right to determine the qualifications necessary for such pilots in this section of the river. We thereby concede to the United States a status equal to that of the owners and operators of our own vessels. We therefore lose our legitimate right of control of navigation in these waters, and we do all this without treaty. There is therefore no give and take.
The minister stated during the sittings of the committee that as far as he was concerned nothing would be done below Montreal, and we replied that we think this is a step in that direction. It is all right for the minister to give his assurance that this will not be done, and I am sure that in making that statement the minister was sincere. However, we know that conditions change, that circumstances alter, and a minister may move from one department to another. A statement such as that has no value with respect to legislation; it has no effect and no legislative force at all.
There is therefore being enacted here legislation which we fear will be a step toward exempting the other districts from the payment of pilotage dues. What is very difficult

to understand is why Canadian ships should be included in this when they are exempt already by an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act. The committee will probably have realized that under one of the sections of the Canada Shipping Act, namely section 346 (e), steamships registered in any part of Her Majesty's dominions are exempt from the payment of pilotage dues. It is difficult to understand why we should create a redundancy by including them in this bill.
There is also the question of safety of navigation. I think it should be brought to the attention of the committee that the waters from the Cornwall-St. Regis area down to Montreal are dangerous waters; they are considered as treacherous in some areas. In fact I believe the water drops close to 100 feet from that point down to the port of Montreal. Very costly navigation facilities have been constructed in this area. There are the St. Lambert lock and the Ste. Catherine lock on the south shore, the two locks at Beauharnois, the channels between these locations and the stretch from the upper Beauharnois to the international boundary line. Why the government has seen fit to exempt this area and put it in the same class as the international pilotage area is difficult to understand, particularly when last year it introduced legislation in this house which covered those international waters in the great lakes area. It seems that after this was done negotiations were entered into between Canada and the United States, in which Canada probably gave the United States to understand that it would grant this exemption in a purely Canadian section of the river.
It has been clearly stated in the committee that this is a serious infringement of the rights of the pilots, let alone the sovereign rights of Canada. In any event, from the point of view of safety there is also the consideration that pilots who normally operate for six to eight hours will, because of this, have to work longer hours. Hence it seems to those of us who sit on this side that there is an injustice being done to the Canadian pilots.
I shall not repeat here what was said by Mr. Lalonde appearing on behalf of the pilots and by Mr. Langlois appearing on behalf of the guild, but it is worth while to remind the minister of the definitions which were given in the former act, chapter 40, referred to earlier, where the great lakes pilotage area was described. It is clear that the description ends at the Cornwall-St. Regis dividing line.
Then the minister indicated, in the committee, I believe, that the Cornwall-Montreal district would remain as it is, and that ships whose captains were desirous of taking on pilots could do so. This would mean that the
Canada Shipping Act
Canadian government would have to maintain a pool of pilots, presumably, in the Cornwall area at the city of Cornwall; because if United States vessels are going to have the option of taking on pilots, pilots must be provided and a pool established. I presume the logical place for that would be the city of Cornwall. However, there would be no obligation upon the captains of United States vessels to use these pilots, and they might well decide to sail right through without using the services of the pilots.
The objection we see to the part of the bill with which I am now dealing is twofold. First, it is giving to United States vessels rights which they do not now possess by treaty. All the rights and privileges of United States citizens in the international waters of the St. Lawrence have heretofore been granted by treaty, and it is difficult to understand why in a section which is purely Canadian an attempt is being made to give an exemption which does not exist in the rest of the waters of the St. Lawrence. The next point to which we draw attention is the fact that in this area the waters are swift and treacherous. We object to the provision now being made. We think it should be made compulsory to take on pilots, and that this exemption should not be granted.
These are the remarks which I have intended to make, and I hope they will be received by the minister in the manner in which I feel they should.


Mr. Smith (Simcoe North):: I wish to direct my remarks to the point which has been covered by the hon. member for Laurier. We cannot take a narrow or parochial view of this amendment. The St. Lawrence seaway is one, from Fort William and Port Arthur in the west to Montreal in the east, and from the United States ports of Duluth and Chicago in the American west to Montreal in the east. There is no practical possibility of devising an artificial boundary or terminal for the seaway at Cornwall or St. Regis. The economic end of the seaway is Montreal, and that, too, is where the United States contribution to the works of the seaway stopped.
We have heard the hon. member for Laurier demand on many occasions that an economic survey of the effect of the seaway be made. I represent a riding on Georgian bay, part of the great lakes system which was probably more affected in its economic life by the seaway than any other part. Many of us, and many other people interested in shipping, wish that the survey which the hon. member now requests had been made when he was in a position of administrative responsibility and could have had it carried out himself.

Canada Shipping Act
In order to straighten out a few of the facts I think a timetable of the negotiations which preceded this amendment might be useful to the committee. We shall begin in the summer of 1960, a year ago. Negotiations for the joint pilotage of all the confined waters of the seaway between ourselves and the United States began in September, 1960. The pilots between Kingston and Montreal made certain demands on the government-we should be clear as to this-prior to November, 1960. There was no compulsory pilotage, nor was there compulsory payment of pilotage dues between Kingston and Montreal in either section of that area.
In September, 1960, the pilots in that area made certain demands or requests of the Minister of Transport. As a result of these requests the area from Kingston to Montreal was made a compulsory pilotage dues area.
1 think the exact date was November 17, 1960. At that time the pilots were told that United States shipping would likely be exempted in this particular section. The pilots told us in "the committee that they did not agree, and I can understand that they did not agree. However, they were certainly warned in November, 1960 of what was going to happen.
Following the order in council and the negotiations, a press release was issued by the pilots in Montreal. The United States representatives negotiating the agreement took up this press release and brought it to the attention of representatives of the Department of Transport who were negotiating with them. They said that if we wanted to get an over-all agreement with the United States we would have to exempt United States vessels from the payment of compulsory pilotage dues in this area, St. Regis to Montreal. I think that is an understandable demand on the part of the United States. After all, it has contributed many millions of dollars to the improvement of the seaway works in that particular area of the seaway.
I should like to again emphasize the fact that Montreal is the eastern terminal of the seaway. Much has been made of the fact that this particular area was not included in the agreement, nor in the definition of the great lakes basin. As I understand it, the reason for that is quite clear. The area from St. Regis to Montreal involves only Canadian waters, just as the waters of lake Michigan are completely United States waters and are not covered by the agreement. However, the United States has exempted our ships from compulsory pilotage regulations in respect of the waters of lake Michigan.
As a final note regarding the sequence of events which preceded this amendment, I should like to say that agreement with the

United States in respect of pilotage was concluded in May of this year, and provides equal pilotage rates in those sections of the waters which are bordered by the two countries.
A great deal has been said during this debate regarding sovereignty. It has been suggested that if we give up something by treaty we give up some of our sovereignty, because in order to recover that which we had lost a breach of that treaty would be incurred. I suggest we have not given up any of our sovereignty in this way because in respect of Canadian waters we have done this by act of parliament rather than by treaty. Surely there is no derogation of our sovereignty in the passing of a law which can be repealed by a future parliament. 1 suggested this involves much less in the way of derogation of our Canadian sovereignty than would be involved had it been done by treaty.
In regard to this subject, the hon. member for Laurier has suggested that we have established a precedent and that the United States will be asking next for free pilotage from Montreal to the open waters at the mouth of the St. Lawrence river. I suggest we have not established a precedent of that kind at all. The United States has contributed nothing to the building of the seaway works beyond Montreal and has no right to do so. However, we are dealing with portions of the St. Lawrence seaway development above St. Regis, toward which the United States has directed millions of dollars.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the hon. member a question? Did I understand him to say that the United States is spending millions of dollars toward this development?


Heber Edgar Smith: I said "has", using the past tense.


Lionel Chevrier: The United States has not spent one cent toward the development of this section of the seaway. Surely my hon. friend should know that.


Heber Edgar Smith: They did not?


Lionel Chevrier: The United States has spent money in the section from Cornwall to St. Regis upstream, not downstream.


Heber Edgar Smith: That is what I said. The hon. member misunderstood me, or perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear.
Regarding the question of sovereignty, it seems to me that one obvious area where we may have lost sovereignty resulted from the location of the eastern end of the western part of the works entering lake Ontario. It might very well have been located in the channel north of Wolfe island, and would

then have been entirely in Canadian waters, rather than south of Wolf island so that it is more logical to locate our pilot stations on the United States side.
I suggest that the issue in respect of safety is not a clear issue at all. The available statistics do not clearly establish the value of pilotage. A great many people fall into the common error of thinking that because a ship had an accident when there was not a pilot aboard, the accident occurred because of that fact. Surely that cannot be a valid understanding, because the corollary would be that if a pilot was aboard at a time the ship had an accident, regardless of the reason, the responsibility would be entirely his. In this regard I suggest that the department should keep statistics in such fashion as to indicate clearly whether these accidents resulted because of the fact that a pilot was or was not aboard.
It is true that these confined areas of the seaway are hazardous. However, I suggest the hazards are much less than before as a result of the great changes which have been made in recent years. Many Canadian captains as well as United States captains have had much experience in operating through the seaway. I suggest those captains have had much more experience in this regard than the captains of ocean going vessels. It must be remembered that great lakes masters, whether Canadian or American, because of their activities have much more experience in handling ships along this seaway than captains of sea-going vessels who are more interested in navigation. For that reason there are many more competent pilots among our Canadian and American masters than among the masters of those sea-going vessels. While much larger ships, such as the 735-foot bulk carriers, are now using the seaway, it must be remembered that those ships are equipped with many safety devices and are handled with greater ease than many of the older ships. I suggest the matter of safety, for that reason, is again inconclusive. I also suggest that if safety is a prime requirement, then compulsory pilotage is the answer.
It has been equated that the imposition of pilotage dues in effect makes pilotage compulsory. In the final analysis of the situation I suggest that is not true at all. However, if safety is a prime consideration there ought to be compulsory pilotage. In this regard, pilots have stated that the imposition of compulsory pilotage will not affect their earnings, and that they have been given the assurance it will not. We have been informed by pilots appearing before the standing committee that prior to November of 1960, when there were no restrictions at all, no ship, either Canadian or United States,
Canada Shipping Act
attempted to go through this section of the seaway without a pilot. I suggest it will be some considerable time before any will make such an attempt.
When considering the effect of this amendment on the operation of the whole seaway and the great lakes system, I suggest it is a good one. Many bogeys have been raised which on examination are found to be invalid, and I do not think we should be embarrassed because of this amendment being made after our agreement with the United States.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laurier raised many points this morning which had been raised earlier during our consideration in the committee, as well as during meetings of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I feel that many of his questions have been extremely well answered by the hon. member for Simcoe North, and that he has dealt with the most important of them. However, I feel it is my duty as minister to bring forward certain suggestions for the consideration of this committee so as to clarify the situation so there will be no misunderstanding regarding the policy of the government.
We are very fortunate in Canada in having extremely well qualified pilots. They are parts of very old corporations; they have ancient traditions. I should not like to leave the impression that we are in any way putting a strain on the very good relations that the Department of Transport, my officials and myself have always had with the members of the pilotage trade. However, I think I should take this opportunity to make sure that the committee has the actual facts as events happened prior to the decision of the government to bring forth this amendment.
As the hon. member for Simcoe North explained, there was a certain difficulty with the pilots last November. We had some very long sessions with them in which we discussed the general policy of the department on the matter of pilotage on the St. Lawrence, and also more particularly the formation of a new district for the Kingston-Cornwall-Montreal area. At that time the pilots made quite a point of this. They requested from the department, myself and the shipping authorities in Canada the imposition of compulsory dues for all ships except Canadian ships going from Cornwall to Montreal and from Montreal to Cornwall.
Well, that would have been quite a step, because by this move we would have recognized a new pilotage district, and we would be imposing compulsory dues in a pilotage district for the first time. Prior to that time all ships in that particular district had been

Canada Shipping Act
exempt, Canadian ships, commonwealth ships, British ships, foreign ships and United States ships. We wanted the pilots in that area to be put in the same position as other pilots on the St. Lawrence. We conceded that, but I remember very well-and I was the spokesman for the government-that I told the pilots myself that we were going to impose compulsory dues but at the first opportunity we would exempt United States ships by law, by an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act, because in all fairness we thought it would have been unfair and unnecessary to impose compulsory dues on United States ships.
The pilots themselves recognized the soundness of my argument. At that time, in November, I said to them, "Well, so that we do not upset the apple cart, and owing to the fact that it is pretty late in the season and we cannot have an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act except very late in the next session, will you exempt the Americans yourselves?" I simply said, "Is it satisfactory to you that as far as United States ships are concerned, you agree not to charge them anything until the end of the year?" The pilots, who were extremely pleased to see that we were imposing compulsory dues on foreign ships apart from United States ships, were agreeable to that. They agreed not to impose dues on United States ships. I remember very well they also said, "Of course we are not in favour of the exemption of any ships, so we will probably have to put in a sort of objection to that but it will be pro forma." That is pretty well the situation.
The hon. member for Laurier talked about sovereignty. I should like to remind the committee that there is absolutely nothing in this amendment to the shipping act which says that a United States pilot will do any pilotage in any Canadian waters. Of course, if any ship requires a pilot from the Canadian border and from St. Regis-Cornwall to Montreal and lower down the river, the law is there, the shipping act is there always to make sure that the pilot will be a Canadian. The only thing we are doing is exempting the Americans as we exempt commonwealth ships in those areas.
As far as safety is concerned, I think it is even more important and more logical to exempt United States ships than commonwealth ships for this reason. The United States ships are lakers and, of course, the United States laker captains have had experience in these waters; they have been plying in these waters all their lives and are in a much better position to man their own ships than others. They know exactly how their ships react in various currents, winds,

and so forth. United States captains are certainly more qualified than the captains of commonwealth or British ships who come in those waters only once or twice a season.
So far as the safety factor is concerned, my hon. friend from Simcoe North puts forward a very good argument when he says that the new seaway, with better aids to navigation, better lighthouses, wider canals and so forth, is certainly a safer area for ships than it was before. My hon. friend from Laurier will admit the inference that it should be safer for a ship to go through those waters than it was before. Of course the traffic may be heavier than it was before, but I do not think the fact that we have this seaway has increased the danger; on the contrary, I think it has decreased the danger in those waters.
I think this is about all I have to say at the present time, but I want to repeat that in what we are doing there is nothing extraordinary at all. United States ships have never paid any dues in those waters. The only reason they were included in the act, and that we must have a special amendment, is that it was too late last November to exempt them by legislation. We told the pilots at that time -they agreed among themselves and they were extremely pleased to see it-that we were imposing compulsory dues on foreign vessels.
I think it is a good thing to have compulsory dues on foreign vessels, because it pretty well forces them to take on pilots. Foreign ships are a real danger in these waters, because their officers and crews have not the experience and they are really the ones who can cause damage. I think safe navigation in the seaway, our relations with our United States friends, and the guarantee of progressive shipping operations in this area all will be secured by this amendment to the act. Therefore I strongly recommend to the committee the adoption of clause 15.


Lionel Chevrier: Some statements have been made both by the hon. member for Simcoe North and by the minister which should be discussed at greater length, if not challenged entirely. The hon. member for Simcoe North regretted that a parochial view was being taken of this matter. I am sure the hon. member does not understand the situation, otherwise he would not have used that expression. Surely the pilots who operate in the whole of the seaway are not taking a parochial view, and they have opposed this legislation. They have not opposed it because of a parochial attitude; they have opposed it because they think these are matters which have been disposed of in the past by treaty, and which should not be regulated by amendment to the Canada Shipping Act in this fashion.

Then the Canadian Labour Congress has put itself on record as being opposed to this amendment, and has given reasons for that opposition. I will not take the time of the committee to put on Hansard the telegram which was sent by the Canadian Labour Congress, but for those who want to read it I may say it can be found on page 173 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence, No. 6, of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. The labour congress certainly did not think they were taking a parochial view when they were dealing with this matter.
The hon. member for Simcoe North was inaccurate in a number of the statements he made. I am sure he will not feel that I want to be disrespectful to him in any way, because I want to deal with the matter as objectively as I can. In the first place, he said that the hon. member for Laurier had been advocating an economic survey of the seaway for a long time, and that if that had been done when that hon. member was in office, perhaps we would have better information available to us now. I have advocated such a survey for years now since I have been in this house, and I have given the reasons why it was not done when I was the president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority. It was not done then because our job was to build the facilities for the seaway and not to seek the establishment of an economic survey, although I had asked certain economists to begin the work because I thought it would be a good thing for Canada, and they had embarked upon it but had not completed it. It was for this reason that I made recommendations to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines some years ago, and that recommendation was adopted but not a thing was done.
It seems strange to me, and I bring this to the attention of the hon. member for Simcoe North, that when the hon. member for Laurier suggests a matter which is approved unanimously, the government does not move. However, when it is some other member who suggests that, for instance, the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways be increased from seven to 12, the government accepts the suggestion right away with hardly any discussion in the committee. I shall leave it to the committee and to the hon. member for Simcoe North to decide for themselves whether political considerations motivate the government. However, let it be known to this committee that a recommendation for an economic survey was passed unanimously. It should have been acted upon, because it would have been a good thing for all these sections of the seaway today if that survey had been made.
Canada Shipping Act
Now, the hon. member for Simcoe North seems to be under a misapprehension as to the extent to which United States funds have been used in the construction of this section of the seaway. There was absolutely no United States money spent in the area of Cornwall-St. Regis and down to Montreal. Canadian funds only were used to construct the facilities, which were entirely in Canadian territory.
Then there was some question, both by the minister and by the hon. member for Simcoe North, of the seaway beginning at Montreal and going up to the head of the lakes. It was stated that it was logical, therefore, to exempt the pilots in this area. Well, I ask the minister and the hon. member, what is the definition of the seaway? According to one of the treaties between our two countries signed in the early days, the seaway begins below Quebec and goes up to the head of the lakes. Certainly in the report of an investigation made by engineers of Canada and the United States into the possibility of joint power and navigation development, the seaway is described as extending from below Quebec right up to the head of the lakes.
This is the fear of the pilots, that once you make any exemption for this fifth pilotage district, Montreal, Cornwall and St. Regis, the next step might very well be Montreal and Quebec, including Les Escoumains or down to Havre St. Pierre or wherever the new dividing line is likely to be. The objection raised by the pilots is that in the pilotage section of the Canada Shipping Act, which was enacted last year, you have already defined what you understand by the district to which this will apply. Certainly it ends at the international line, Cornwall-St. Regis. All the assurances and saving statements made by the minister, as the minister knows, from a legislative standpoint have no value whatever. There is no assurance that another step might not be taken at a later time.
Then the question of safety came up, and it was raised by both the minister and the hon. member. Safety is a prime consideration, but I ask this question. Who is to determine whether or not this is a safe pilotage area? I think the pilots certainly have as much experience of it as the officers of the department, if not far more. I say this with respect, because I have the greatest confidence in the officers of the Department of Transport.
I believe the minister was in error when he made a statement to the effect that United States vessels have been plying these waters all the time. This is not a fact, because I know the area. The United States vessels that have gone through these waters have used Canadian pilots, and that is why Canadian pilots have been stationed at Cornwall for

Canada Shipping Act
years and years. I could name many ot them. I can think now of Captain Ouellette, who plied from Prescott down to Montreal the greater part of his life. I knew him when I was a child, and people used to marvel at the way he would take a ship through the rapids down to Montreal. I can think of Mike Corkey, captain on the C.S.L. boats, who resided there many years. There were many masters. The United States vessels did not use their own captains. Few of them went through the old 14-foot canal system.
It is not accurate or correct to say, as has been stated here, that new aids to navigation have been established. This is not so. The aids to navigation extending from Cornwall-St. Regis to the international boundary line and down to the entrance to the new Beau-harnois canal are, for the most part, exactly the same as they were in the old canal. It is true that the canal is much deeper. It is true that the canal has been widened, and while it is the intention to modernize the aids to navigation they are still, for the most part, exactly the same as they were in the old canal system.
Here is the position. Whereas you had smaller ships carrying loads of 2,000 tons and having a draft of 12 to 14 feet operating in the old canal, now you have ships of 725 or 750 feet in length carrying loads of 25,000 tons which require greater care on the part of those who are operating them than ever before. Once you get into the canal, as was said by the hon. member for Simcoe North, it may well be that because of more modern equipment found on these ships you can manoeuvre through the canals at any rate more easily than was possible previously. But that does not apply to all the ships. There is still a large number of ships that are of the 14-foot calibre. I think the traffic report of the St. Lawrence seaway authority indicates that at least 25 per cent of the ships which moved up and down the seaway in the season of 1960 were of that variety.


Heber Edgar Smith: The number is less and less every year.


Lionel Chevrier: That is quite true. In time, of course, vessels with draft under 25 feet will disappear entirely. How long it will take I do not know. According to the experts it may well be 10 years or more. I remember having heard an expert say it would take 25 years-this was before the seaway was built -before the 25-foot vessels would disappear entirely. As I say, last year about 25 per cent of the traffic was carried by these small vessels. As time goes on they will disappear; none the less it is not so much with regard to the small ships as with regard to the larger ships that one must be careful.

We had one sad experience I mentioned in committee; that of a United States pilot or captain, I have forgotten which, taking a ship through these dangerous waters, finding himself in serious difficulty, and blocking the passage for a substantial length of time. I therefore do not think it is fair or accurate to say that the safety of navigation will not be affected by this measure. I believe it will be affected, and the pilots say it will be affected. Surely those who have had experience all the way up and down this great river and these lakes should be given greater consideration than they have been given in this legislation.


Heber Edgar Smith: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Heber Edgar Smith: Under the agreement with the United States for the construction of a seaway was it not a condition that Canada make certain expenditures in the area from St. Regis to Montreal in addition to what the Americans were spending on the other sections in Montreal?


Lionel Chevrier: The only agreement there was between Canada and the United States is contained in the legislation which was passed by congress and the House of Commons, and in it there is no mention of that matter. I do not know what my hon. friend has in mind, but there certainly was no agreement as to the expenditure. There was United States legislation directing the United States corporation to build all the navigational facilities on the United States side of the line at a cost of $105 million, I think it was then, and there was Canadian legislation directing our authority either to build in Canada or to enter into an agreement with the United States for an understanding as to construction in the international section.
Finally what was arrived at was this. The United States decided to build a canal and two locks at Barnhart island on the United States side, and we decided to build a canal and one lock at Iroquois, Ontario, opposite Rockway Point, New York, but there was never any agreement as to the division of costs. The United States decided to build those facilities at a cost of $105 million then; I think they finally cost somewhat more than that. Our costs also increased over the estimate announced in those years.
I was just about to conclude by saying that I do not want to make this a contentious matter. I want to deal with it as objectively as possible. That is what I have tried to do this morning, as well as in the committee. However, I think it is a serious thing, first,

to deal in an act of parliament such as this, with a matter which has always been dealt with by treaty; and second, not to give greater consideration to the safety aspect in that part of the St. Lawrence which it seems to me is one of dangerous waters.


Léon Balcer: I also want to deal with this matter objectively, and I just want to answer shortly two or three points that have been raised by the hon. member for Laurier. The hon. member said that one of the big worries of the pilots is that this is a kind of first encroachment, and that it might have a tendency to produce the result of United States ships asking for exemption in the pilotage districts below Montreal. Mr. Chairman, United States ships have been exempt at all times right up to last November, and it has not produced any real pressure or nothing has been done with regard to exempting them from pilotage dues below Montreal. What we are doing at the present time actually is leaving the status quo as far as the United States is concerned. My hon. friend said that the ships are now larger and so on. I want to repeat that what we are doing is nothing new. United States ships have always been exempted. Of course many of them use pilots, and they are using pilots at the present time. However, when they do so they use Canadian pilots.
The hon. member for Laurier said I was making a comparison, as far as safety is concerned, between the pilots and the United States captains. That is not what I had in mind. As far as safety is concerned, what I am saying is that I do not think it is logical to exempt commonwealth ships and British ships, when their captains certainly cannot have had the same experience in these canals, these lakes and these waters as a United States laker captain who has been working all his life on ships plying these waters, although maybe not as a captain. I know of a United States captain who is in charge of a big laker and who has spent practically all of his life in lake waters. He therefore has had tremendous experience in these waters. When you are discussing safety, I think it would be illogical to allow a commonwealth ship to go up without being forced to take on a pilot and to refuse the same thing to the United States ships. I am also told that at the present time United States ships are using pilots and that they are Canadian pilots. We felt that this is a matter that should be left to them. They may develop some captains who are extremely used to these waters, and in some circumstances they might not feel that they need a pilot for one reason or another.
Canada Shipping Act
The other point raised by my hon. friend as far as safety is concerned is that we should not exempt United States ships because the situation is not the same at the present time; that ships are getting bigger and so on. May I say that the situation is exactly the same for Canadian ships. These huge long lakers going from lake Ontario to Montreal at the present time are new. They started on this route since the seaway was built. Our Canadian captains on our Canadian ships are faced with the same problem as that faced by United States captains on United States ships. There is no question of not exempting Canadian ships. So far as safety is concerned, I think we must not exaggerate this point. I am quite sure that the captain of a huge laker, when taking his ship down these waters and through these canals, will continue to take on our very good Canadian pilots if he is in any doubt about the safety of his ship.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question. Is it the intention of the department to establish a pool of pilots at Cornwall?


Léon Balcer: There is a pool of Canadian pilots there at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: How many pilots are there?


Léon Balcer: There used to be 24, but now I think it is about 20 or 21.
Clause 1 agreed to.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 2 carry?


Lionel Chevrier: Not too fast, Mr. Chairman; I cannot follow you.
Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 9.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, this is a clause in this very important bill that we from British Columbia would certainly like the minister to comment upon. Coming from the west coast of British Columbia I must say that I was quite amazed to see one of the changes being made to this section. I can assure hon. members that it is of serious import to marine employees in British Columbia; they are very, very much concerned about its application.
I realize that a brief may have been presented to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines by Mr. R. G. Greaves, president of the national association of marine engineers of Canada, but as I am not a member of that standing committee I do not know just what consideration was given to this section or what consideration has been given by the minister to the brief on behalf of this association.

Canada Shipping Act
I do want to emphasize the seriousness with which clause 9	(2) (1) (iii) is viewed in
British Columbia, in particular by all tug boat employees. Very briefly I should like to point out that this particular phase of the clause makes a major change with regard to whether or not there is to be an engineer continuously on duty on tug boats having a certain nominal horsepower.
I am not going to go very deeply into this question of nominal horsepower, because it is something which I have not been able to fully understand. If it is electrical horsepower, I know it; if it is brake horsepower, I know it; but nominal horsepower is something rather nebulous. I understand these words were used at the end of the last century, although the expression was not included in our own act until 25 or 26 years ago. Nominal horsepower, as I have been able to understand it, is horsepower which is based on the area of a piston, but it does not have any relationship whatsoever in these modern times, to the stroke or the speed of the piston. Therefore nominal horsepower actually, in this day and age, does not bear any relationship to brake horsepower.
However, if my information is correct the majority of tug boats in British Columbia are going to be most seriously affected by a change being made to section 9, in that it will enable tug boat owners to comply with the act and will yet result, according to the national association of marine engineers, in a lay-off of between 50 and 100 engineers.
There is not only the factor of the laying-off of between 50 and 100 engineers who are employed on tug boats off the coast of British Columbia to be considered. There is also the most important question of safety.
I just cannot understand how this recommendation could come from anybody who knows the coast line of British Columbia. We have literally hundreds of dangerous channels. During particular periods of the year we have very, very severe rain and fog conditions. In addition, there has been a radical change in the tug boat industry, not only with regard to the greater power and efficiency of the motors themselves but also in their speed and in the loads they tow. It is not so long ago that the large log booms were towed at approximately one and one half to two knots per hour, but now we have the new log barges carrying between 3,000 and 4,000 tons of logs being towed at between seven and eight knots per hour.
In view of the increased power-that is, the brake horsepower-in tug boats today, this matter of safety is mighty important. Many of these tug boats have been re-engined in the last two or three years.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Perhaps we may call it one o'clock.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, Mr. Chairman; may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Harold Edward Winch: When the committee adjourned at one o'clock I was discussing a certain phase of clause 9 which is of serious import to those engaged on coastal work in tow boats in British Columbia, and which seriously concerns that industry as far as the safety of its employees is concerned.
In the few minutes during which I spoke I made mention of the fact that in this clause we still have the legislation aligned with an antiquated term, namely "nominal horsepower". I made some mention of that, and I pointed out the difference between nominal horsepower and brake horsepower. I should like to return to this question of nominal horsepower and relate it to the point I had taken up at one o'clock, namely the safety of tow boat operations in British Columbia.
I do not think the advance made in the efficiency and power of the engines used in tow boats has generally been recognized. I am advised, and it was confirmed by my reading during the lunch hour, that the actual change in the relation between nominal horsepower and brake horsepower has been fantastic. I have discovered that an engine as fitted to a tow boat in 1935, a four cylinder diesel engine with a nominal horsepower rating of just over 10, was capable of developing 240 brake horsepower. Today a modern engine such as the Werkespor diesel of four cylinders, rated at 8.6 nominal horsepower, is capable of developing 800 brake horsepower. Thus a modem engine whose nominal horsepower is rated at less than an engine turned out in 1935 can develop 800 brake horsepower as compared with 240 horsepower, and the remarkable increase in the power of modem tow boats at once becomes apparent. Yet because of an insistence for some reason or another in clause 9 that the power of a propelling engine should be measured in terms of nominal horsepower, proper consideration is not given to the work of the engineers, the responsibility of the engineers, and the increasing necessity for paying attention to safety.
It is my understanding that at the present time in British Columbia there are approximately 160 tow boats which require two engineers or, as I believe the proper term has

it, a continuous watch. If this provision of clause 9 which I am now discussing comes into effect it is my understanding that not more than 30 tow boats on the British Columbia coast will require a continuous watch involving two engineers. Irrespective of the increased efficiency and brake horsepower of diesel motors on tow boats, one of the basic reasons for the practical development of this greater power lies in automation, or the automatic control of these engines. The majority of those instruments and gauges operate on electricity. I should like all hon. members to realize that fact. I am aware of the situation, as I am an electrician by trade although perhaps a member of parliament by profession. I appreciate what can happen to automatic electrical equipment as the result of salt brine in the air and oily conditions in engine rooms, as well as because of disturbances through the vibrations caused by choppy water. Many of the new engines have automatic electrical gauges which require close examination and attention to make sure they are working properly. The checking of these instruments must be done by highly skilled individuals who understand their workings.
With the adoption of clause 9 of this bill between 50 and 100 engineers are going to be employed on a 12 hours on and 12 hours oft basis in British Columbia. This will have the result that an engineer will be in the engine room for a 12 hours period, and during his 12 hours oft duty the deckhand, the master or the mate will have to check the gauges. How will an inexperienced deckhand, or even a master or mate, be able to tell at a glance what is happening in the engine room below? I suggest they will not know because they are not trained to tell whether these highly automatic and delicate instruments are working properly.
That is my first point regarding safety. My second point has to do with the greatly increased efficiency and power of these engines which, as I pointed out earlier, on some occasions enable tow boats to travel from one and a half knots per hour to approximately eight knots per hour in British Columbia waters. I suggest the dangers involved are terrific. If this clause, particularly that portion regarding the nominal horsepower ratings is adopted, a situation will develop where the vast majority of tow boats operating off British Columbia will do so without engineers being on duty for at least 50 per cent of the time. Surely it cannot be expected that masters, mates or deckhands of these tow boats, who have other responsibilities, will know what these gauges and instruments indicate, particularly when their duties keep them in other parts of the ship than the engine room.
Canada Shipping Act
I should like to point out that the coast line of British Columbia is very tricky and dangerous from the point of navigation. I have had the privilege of living on the British Columbia coast for some 50 years. I have travelled along the coast on innumerable occasions from the Fraser river on the south to the Nass river on the north, by C.P.R. and C.N.R. steamship and by Union Steamship as well as by fishing boat, and know the situation which exists there. There are hundreds upon hundreds of passengers carried along this coast, to say nothing of the passengers carried on the inland waters which are plied mainly by tow boats twisting and turning up the river.
I do not intend to be derogatory to British Columbia in any way when I say there is quite a bit of fog, rain and stormy weather there, but that is the fact. As a result of this situation the masters and mates of these vessels must focus their attention, particularly during storms, on the navigation aspect rather than the operation of the engine. I think it is well known that in past years these masters have depended on echo sound to know where they were in these channels. They did this by blowing their whistle and counting the seconds until the echo was heard. In order to do this successfully one must give careful concentration. I understand that many ships today are equipped with radar, but even with that equipment the master and mate must direct their attention to those instruments and not the instruments in the wheel house which show the condition of the engine. However, the adoption of this clause will mean that the masters and mates, and in certain cases even the deckhands, will have to divide their attention between their normal duties and those of the engineer who is not there.
It is my understanding that the law requires that there must be a deckhand, who very often is a young boy, on watch on deck as well as the master or mate in the wheel-house. I suggest that regulation has been adopted for a purpose, and because of the requirement under this clause that the deckhand, master or mate must check these engine room instruments, that purpose will be lost, to say nothing of the fact that these individuals are not trained in the reading and understanding of the instruments.
When considering the whole situation which will develop as a result of the adoption of clause 9, particularly in view of the conditions which exist off the coast of British Columbia, one can only conclude that the provisions of this clause are the result of thoughtless recommendation, not only from the point of view of diminished employment but also having regard to safety.

Canada Shipping Act
1 sincerely ask the Minister of Transport to acquiesce to my suggestion that this clause be not pursued at this session, but that it be postponed until further detailed consideration has been given to it. I suggest to the minister that the officials of his department should consult fully with representatives of the national association of marine engineers of Canada. I regret very much that representatives of that association, who are vitally concerned with this subject not only from the point of view of employment but in regard to safety as well, did not have the opportunity of appearing before the standing committee which considered this bill. I do not understand why they were not invited to attend, because I know that representatives of that national association have had correspondence with officials of the minister's department for over a year. In spite of that fact they were not advised in any way by the officials of the department as to when this bill was to be considered by that standing committee of this house.
This is most unfortunate, because to my knowledge they are definitely reasonable and sensible men. I feel certain they could have contributed a good deal, and could have explained far better than I can why they are so concerned over this part of clause 9, as regards both safety and employment. In view of all the circumstances, I cannot understand why the minister would insist on this clause going through.
As I have said, this is a most serious matter to the tow boat industry in British Columbia. This committee should not be interested in the additional profits which the tow boat owners would get by laying off from 50 to 100 engineers. Our interest should be a recognition of the increased efficiency, power and automatic controls of the new diesel engines. It should be a recognition of the fact that a 24-hour watch in the engine room is required. There is a requirement for engineers who not only know their engines but also the equipment and special controls, and who have the time to check them constantly so that the salt brine, the oil and the rocking disturbance on a tow boat off the coast of British Columbia do not throw their gauges and instruments out of kilter. There should be somebody on duty 24 hours a day who knows exactly what is taking place in the engine room.
I think the association is making a most reasonable and responsible request, and I hope it will be agreed to by the minister who is in charge of piloting this bill through the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: May I just say a word on the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East. I was particularly interested in

what he said because certain representations have been made to me along the lines of the subject matter on which the hon. member spoke. I learned that there has been a great deal of correspondence between the national association of marine engineers of Canada and the minister over quite a period of time dealing with the matter brought up by the hon. member for Vancouver East.
When I was approached in connection with it I asked why it was that representations were not made to the committee, and was told they did not know the committee was sitting. I can readily understand why that would be, since they live at the other end of the country in Vancouver and when the committee sat very little notice was given. I am anxious to know what answer the minister will be giving to this representation, and I hope he will find it possible to give it careful if not sympathetic consideration now.


Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, earlier in the discussion of this bill-and I am thinking particularly now of paragraph (c) of subclause 2 of clause 9-I expressed some concern over the application of the rule insisting on having engineers on fishing boats which were powered with engines of more than 10 nominal horsepower. First I should explain that although I recognize the need for properly qualified engineers on the larger boats which go to sea, at the same time with respect to the inshore fishing fleet consisting of small boats operating in coastal waters, which are manned by crews composed of fishermen, frequently a combination of a father and son or brothers and others, it would be very difficult, in fact it would be impossible, for those boats to have certified engineers.
However, I am glad to be informed that nominal horsepower in its relationship to brake horsepower is so varied as to be almost without relationship, if I may use that phrase. For instance, I am told that a diesel engine rated a 165 brake horsepower at 2,000 revolutions per minute, with a bore of 4.25 inches, and six cylinders would have a nominal horsepower of 1.8. I am given to understand that the nominal horsepower formula is the diameter of the cylinder squared times the number of cylinders divided by 60. A high speed engine develops its horsepower through speed rather than size, and its nominal horsepower would be lower than that of a heavy duty engine with comparatively large cylinders and low r.p.m.'s. The latter would develop its horsepower at a slower speed, and its nominal horsepower would be greater. In either case it is very unlikely that a small inshore fishing boat would have more than 10 nominal horsepower.
I was also happy to be informed that engineers for fishing boats would be rated at

least in part according to their practical experience. The only request I have to make in that connection is that some statement be made to clarify this for the public, and I have in mind in particular the fishermen in my district. I ask that this be clarified so there will be no misunderstanding of what nominal horsepower really means and what the requirements will be for engineers for fishing boats.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, we have just had a very interesting although not too technical observation on this matter but I do not want to get too involved in a discussion of the different types of horsepower. All I want to say is that so far as we are concerned in the department we must have fixed horsepower ratings on which to base the requirements of the act.
Brake horsepower, of course, can be influenced by revolutions and cylinder pressure, both of which can be varied at the will of the operator of an engine, and is quite unsuitable as a criterion for this reason. If we adopted brake horsepower as the criterion of measurement we could have two engines of the same size rated at different brake horsepower, because it can be varied by different revolutions. Nominal horsepower might not be so correctly indicative of the actual horsepower, but it is based on cylinder diameter and the number of cylinders, which are non-variable factors. I am just stating this to explain why we have gone by the nominal horsepower rather than the brake horsepower.
However, Mr. Chairman, at the request of the owners the department sent to the west coast an experienced marine engineer who has been aboard the tugs themselves. These tugs are now propelled by modern diesel engines, and they are fitted with a full set of automatic devices by means of which the man on the bridge can keep himself advised of what is going on in the engine room. Furthermore, the tendency toward breakdowns has been considerably reduced. Indeed, the machinery is now constructed in such a way that when repairs are necessary they can be carried out only at a site where full repair or replacement facilities exist. The report we have received from this very experienced engineer inspector leads us to believe that there is less and less necessity for an engineer to be on the watch at all times.
This is the information upon which we have acted. However, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I was impressed by the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I would not like the engineers to feel that we were pushing something on them when they had no chance to study the matter and no opportunity to appear before the 90205-6-391
Canada Shipping Act
committee. Of course it can be stated that this should be a matter for collective bargaining between the owners and the engineers, and I imagine that in the near future it will be. However, I hesitate to ask the committee to pass this clause. According to the hon. member the engineers had not been properly advised of the study of this matter by the committee. As hon. members know, these committee sittings are more or less last minute decisions, and it is always very difficult to give advance notice to the various people who express a desire to appear before a committee.
On the other hand, these engineers are on the west coast, rather a long distance from Ottawa. I certainly would not like it to be said that I pressed these new regulations upon the engineers, especially since they are closely related to their employment. I do not know how many engineers might be laid off if these new regulations were enacted, so I intend to ask the committee to postpone action on this clause. At the same time, however, I should like to give notice to the engineers and to the house that the next time the Canada Shipping Act is brought forward for amendment, a similar amendment will be introduced. We must make sure at that time that the engineers come before the committee and express their views. I would therefore ask the committee to drop paragraph 3 of clause 9.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Perhaps the Minister of Veterans Affairs would compose an amendment to cover this change, and put it in writing.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Very well.


Harold Edward Winch: While this is being done, may I express my appreciation of the attitude of the minister, Mr. Chairman, in meeting the request of the marine engineers. I appreciate it, and I know that they will appreciate it a great deal. May I ask the minister whether it is clause 9 (3) (c) that we must delete, or whether it is 9 (2) (c)?


Léon Balcer: It is only subclause 3.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I move:
That subclause 3 of clause 9 of the bill be deleted.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 9 as amended carry?
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 14 inclusive agreed to.

Canada Shipping Act
On clause 15-Penalty.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, during the noon adjournment I had a short conversation with the hon. member for Greenwood. He said he was extremely interested in the discussion which took place during the earlier part of the morning because of the pilots who used to shoot the rapids when he lived near Kingston. I too have some very vivid recollections of this, and I wonder if I may be allowed to put on Hansard the experience of two Canadian men, Mr. T. R. Glover and Mr. D. D. Calvin, two Kingston men, so we will learn how they shot the rapids at Lachine, in the days of the drams years ago.
Presently, the long dram undulated over the first smooth rounded waves of the rapids, a moment more and we had fairly entered. As the dram hit the first big waves of the sharper descent the steersmen hauled in their oars and ran back to escape the water as it boiled over the bow of the dram, whose whole fabric bent and strained to conform to the long waves of the rapids- we dashed down the main "pitch" in what seemed no more than a few seconds. There was a curious illusion that the great barely submerged rocks were rushing upstream as we passed them; the heavy timber bumped and thudded underfoot, the water spurted up in great jets as the sides of two pieces of it struck flat together.
For those who have shot the rapids that is a most interesting and, I believe, accurate description. I raise the matter on this clause so the minister will realize what work of importance the pilots have to do in any section of the river but more particularly in this one, for the reasons I gave this morning. It strikes me that they must be highly qualified people in order to carry through these difficult waters ships of the kind, length and draft mentioned earlier.
I wonder whether the minister would not give consideration to treating this clause in the same way as he dealt with clause No. 9. I am sure that the pilots and those who sit on this side of the house would be very grateful to him if this clause were withdrawn for the time being, until a definite arrangement on it is made with the United States.


Léon Balcer: I think there is a wide difference between the two clauses. With respect to clause 9 a major aspect of employment arose. My impression is that the employment of a number of engineers on the west coast was at stake, and also that these engineers or their association did not have an opportunity to express their views before the committee. With regard to clause 15, as far as the pilots in the Cornwall district are concerned no question of employment or of salary arises. Also, I think the pilots themselves or their representatives appeared before the committee and had all the opportunity in the world to express their views, to be questioned and to give their opinions on the
[The Deputy Chairman.!
whole matter. I therefore think there is a great difference between the two clauses. I really believe that clause 15 will not hurt the pilots. It is not unfair to anybody. I believe it will not hurt anyone either now or in the future.


Lionel Chevrier: The pilots, of course, do not agree with that statement. As the minister knows, they made representations against it and they made their position quite clear. However, I am not going to pursue the matter other than to ask one or two questions, if I may do so. Can the minister tell me why this section was not included in chapter 40 of last year's statutes which introduced a new section, namely the pilotage section, as an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act? Why was it not introduced at that time?


Léon Balcer: The amendment last year dealt purely with great lakes waters. The Cornwall-Montreal district is one that deals only with strictly Canadian waters. That is the reason it was not included.


Lionel Chevrier: Is Canada getting anything in exchange for this concession to United States vessels?


Léon Balcer: Quite lengthy discussions have taken place between our officials and United States officials. As is well known, as to pilotage in the great lakes, the St. Lawrence river and practically everywhere else in the world, very complicated and very technical matters are always involved. My officials and the United States officials carried on lengthy discussions and both sides tried to act in a most fair way.
We obtained some extremely advantageous results as far as we were concerned. One that comes to my mind is with regard to the lake Michigan area, which was not restricted. These are purely United States waters. I could say that this is an example of give and take or of the consideration that the United States has given to us. Also they have been very co-operative in determining the number of United States pilots who are going to be brought into the picture. They could have asked that on the great lakes half of the piloting be done by United States pilots and half by Canadian pilots. Instead of doing that they accepted a gradual increase in the proportion over a period of five years. They did that instead of asking for it immediately. I think those are fairly important considerations on top of all the others I mentioned this morning.


Lionel Chevrier: One of the considerations the minister has just mentioned is that compulsory pilotage will be exempted for Canadian vessels on lake Michigan, which is purely a United States lake. My question is

this. Has the United States congress enacted legislation similar to that which the Canadian parliament is now considering?


Mr, Balcer:: In the agreement on pilotage between the two countries the lake Michigan area was expressly exempted, or rather the exemption was withdrawn in favour of Canadians and it was expressed in that agreement. I am also informed that it is provided for in the United States legislation.


Lionel Chevrier: I have the great lakes pilotage agreement, and in it there seems to be no reference to lake Michigan.


Léon Balcer: 1 am informed that lake Michigan is designated in the agreement. I have not the agreement at hand, but I am informed by my officials that lake Michigan is mentioned in it, that the waters of lake Michigan are considered as designated waters and that Canadian pilots may operate in the designated waters.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister point to the legislation passed by congress which exempts Canadian ships from pilotage dues on lake Michigan?


Léon Balcer: I do not think we can find an exactly parallel example that would fit the picture. What the present amendment consists of is an exemption from pilotage dues. As to the agreement and the pilotage legislation in the United States, it deals with pilotage. There is nothing in the agreement which forces Canadian ships to take pilots on board in lake Michigan, which is a designated water. I have the text of the agreement here, and it says:
Registered vessels-


Lionel Chevrier: From what page is the minister reading?


Léon Balcer: Pages 1 and 2 of the agreement:
Registered vessels of the United States and foreign vessels navigating United States waters of the great lakes which are not designated by the president by proclamation are required by the act to have on board a United States registered pilot or a Canadian registered pilot or other officer qualified for the waters concerned who will be available to direct the navigation of the vessel in such undesignated waters at the discretion of and subject to the customary authority of the master.
The secretary of commerce of the United States is responsible for carrying out those provisions of the act relating to the registration of United States pilots-
And so on.


Lionel Chevrier: Reading that very quickly, Mr. Chairman, I am not so sure that it covers the position as enunciated by the minister.


Heber Edgar Smith: I think if you read it slowly, it will.
90205-6-391J
Canada Shipping Act


Lionel Chevrier: Why was it that the equivalent of section 15 was not introduced into this agreement? In other words, why should it be necessary for Canada to implement this agreement by way of legislation, whereas the United States, if the minister is correct-and I have some doubt that he is-implements it by the agreement to which he has referred? What is good for the United States surely ought to be good enough for Canada.


Léon Balcer: As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, it is not exactly the same situation. Navigation on lake Michigan is very different to navigation from Cornwall to Montreal. Everybody who is at all familiar with navigation on the great lakes will appreciate the difference.
The agreement that was arrived at between our two countries on the matter of pilotage in the great lakes area was extremely advantageous as far as Canada was concerned. All these pilotage districts are well defined, and consideration was given at all times to the status of our pilots. It was a very satisfactory agreement. As I said earlier, the United States could have asked for parity in the number of pilots right off the bat and it would have created extreme hardship for our pilots, because with regard to these pilotage districts the committee will realize that if suddenly, in a place where we had 20 pilots, we had to cut that number in half it would mean that ten pilots would be unemployed.
The United States saw our point of view and agreed to this agreement between the two countries, which agreement is quite advantageous to Canada. I think it is fair, and it does not create unemployment for or jeopardize the jobs of Canadian pilots. At the same time it does not impose on United States ships the obligation to pay money that they have never had to pay since confederation or since there has been navigation in these waters. Actually the pilots of Canada are much better off than they were prior to November, 1960, and at the same time we have not created complications and unnecessary hardship for United States shipping, which would have been unfair in the circumstances.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the minister say why the effect or the wording of section 15 was not put into the agreement, rather than being made an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, in November, 1960 we explained very clearly to the pilots that we would have to do this. They were not taken by surprise. We told them at the time we would have to do it. With regard

Canada Shipping Act
to the reason for adopting this procedure, I will be in a position to tell the committee this in just a moment.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, while the minister is considering the matter I should like to say that the United States is getting certain advantages by way of agreement. Is the minister ready to deal with the point?


Léon Balcer: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Of course the only way we can withdraw exemption from payment of pilotage dues is through an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act. There is no other way as far as we are concerned. That is the reason we did it by amendment to the statute. That is also why in November, 1960 I told the pilots we were going to do this and obtained their voluntary agreement to this exemption of United States ships.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the minister says he told the pilots. The pilots accept that, but they reply that they were certainly led to believe all along that this would not be implemented by way of legislation; that the position would remain from the month of November until such time as the agreement had been negotiated between Canada and the United States. I refer to the agreement which was mentioned during the committee hearings.
After the agreement was negotiated it was announced by the minister, and they had no opportunity to make any further representations. The point I am trying to make now is that if it is proper for Canada to exempt from pilotage dues by way of legislation, surely the United States should do the same. After all, this matter is just as important to one country as to the other. Instead, if the minister is correct, Canadian vessels are exempted from the payment of pilotage dues on lake Michigan by way of an agreement.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier the United States does not have legislation parallel to this, because as far as lake Michigan is concerned their legislation covers exemption from pilotage and it is not an exemption from pilotage dues. That is the difference. As far as Canadian ships are concerned, they were exempted from compulsory pilotage on lake Michigan by legislation. As I said, it is not exactly the same thing because their legislation is not parallel with that in Canada. On the St. Lawrence we have compulsory pilotage dues, and as far as lake Michigan is concerned they talk about compulsory pilotage, period.
My hon. friend has said the pilots did not have a chance to express their views and make representations. I do not agree with that at all. We have met with the pilots many times; we have received briefs from them;

they have appeared before the committee, and I can assure my hon. friend and the committee that they had every opportunity to express their views and give us their opinion of this legislation. As I said earlier, not only were they advised that this amendment would be forthcoming when the bill was introduced in the house, but it was explained to them very clearly in November, 1960 that we intended to do this. That is when we requested the voluntary exemption of the United States ships and that is what they have been doing since the end of navigation last year.


Lionel Chevrier: One has only to look at the minutes of the committee meeting to see what the position really is. If hon. members turn to volume No. 6 of the minutes of evidence of that committee they will find that the position is entirely different to that which the minister has suggested. One would think, from what the minister has said, that the pilots were delighted by this clause but, in fact, they are, of course, opposed to it. Anyway, I am not satisfied with the minister's explanation and that is why I propose to move, seconded by Mr. Granger:
That clause 15 be deleted.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 9; nays, 36.


Lionel Chevrier: During the course of the proceedings in committee it was established that section 346(e) of the act already exempts Canadian ships and it was clearly stated that it was a redundancy to try to exempt Canadian ships once again by virtue of the wording in this clause. Hence, I desire to move seconded by Mr. Granger:
That the words "Canada or" in line 26 be deleted so that line 26 of clause 15 (ee) would read "ships registered in the United States".


Léon Balcer: It is true that this matter was brought up in the committee. At that time the suggestion was turned down, but my officials have made a thorough study of this point and the government would be agreeable to making this change. I agree with the hon. gentleman that the words "Canada or" are not necessary and that they should be deleted.
Amendment agreed to: Yeas, 46; nays, nil.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister has been more sympathetic to the second amendment and I wonder whether he would give consideration to the following suggestion. In the course of the committee hearings he indicated that this clause would affect the Cornwall district only, that is to say, Montreal-Cornwall-St. Regis. I wonder whether he could give the

same favourable consideration to this amendment which I propose to move now:
That all the words after "in" in line 34 be deleted and the following substituted therefor-"while operating in the Montreal-Cornwall-St. Regis pilotage district".
The effect of this would be to leave the operation of the pilots upstream covered by the amendment which was brought in last year under chapter 40 when there was established a pilotage section in the great lakes as an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act. It would seem to me that there might be a redundancy there, too. Since the minister felt that this affected one district only, I wonder whether he would not consider accepting this amendment to the Canada Shipping Act thereby limiting it to the Cornwall district alone.


Léon Balcer: I am not objecting to this for the mere sake of objecting, but I am informed that there is a legal technicality here which would make it difficult for the government to agree with the hon. member. Apparently there is a difference as far as the Cornwall pilotage district and the St. Lawrence river district are concerned. The districts below Montreal have all been established by act of parliament while what is called the Cornwall pilotage district has been incorporated by order in council. I am advised that if we were to accept this amendment it might lead to the creation of some legal difficulties due to the fact that these pilotage districts have not been incorporated in the same way. For example, the name might be changed, or the boundaries might be changed and that could create difficulties in the future.


Lionel Chevrier: Does not this wording now cover everything right up to the head of the great lakes?


Heber Edgar Smith: I should like to ask the hon. member for Laurier a question. How would his amendment work if instead of defining the present seaway limit of the exemption by a geographical line we were to define it by a pilotage area or district and then that district were extended far to the east? Would the hon. member want the exemption to extend, possibly, well east of Montreal island if the area of the district were changed?


Lionel Chevrier: I think I can answer that very quickly by repeating what the minister has said. There is a difference between this pilotage district, in that it was established by an order in council whereas the others were established by act of parliament.


Heber Edgar Smith: It is still safer to establish them by geographical limit.
Canada Shipping Act


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is the committee ready for the question?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I am waiting for an answer from the minister.


Léon Balcer: I am advised that this is purely a form of drafting. The other part of the old district from Cornwall to Kingston is part of the great lakes pilotage area, which is why it is worded this way rather than as the hon. member suggests. For that reason I must-


Lionel Chevrier: Accept the amendment?


Léon Balcer: -vote against the amendment.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 12; nays, 35.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 28 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 29-Regulations.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, in regard to clause 29 I understand that the governor in council is given the authority to make regulations to prevent the pollution of the air by products of combustion from ships. It also provides a penalty for violation of the regulations. I am interested in the pollution of water as well as the pollution of air by ships.
In the Niagara district the cities of Welland and St. Catharines, as well as two towns, buy water for domestic purposes from the St. Lawrence seaway authority, that is, from the canal. The water is filtered and chlorinated. The Welland canal is a confined waterway. The flow of water is controlled and is, therefore, not nearly equal to the flow that would attain from a river of equivalent width and depth. Ships discharge raw sewage directly into the canal, as they do in the great lakes. Very often this discharge of sewage takes place in the canal at some docks which are very close to the intakes of domestic water supply. Very often the ships are there for a number of days loading and unloading. In view of this situation I wonder whether the minister would give some consideration to a provision preventing the discharge of sewage into our great lakes and canals, and particularly in those confined areas from which domestic water supplies are obtained, as well as in those areas in close proximity to bathing and swimming areas. If we are going to clean up our international joint waterway, I think we should do something to prevent the ships making use of this waterway by discharging raw sewage directly into it.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment ot this clause. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Niagara Falls, that

Canada Shipping Act
the clause be amended by inserting a new section, paragraph (b), as follows:
For regulating and preventing the pollution of the water by sewage, oil or any other chemical compound,
The present paragraph (b) would then become paragraph (c).


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is the committee ready for the question


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, my department is extremely sympathetic toward the arguments presented by the hon. member. I should like to remind hon. members of this committee that this government has already made an effort in an attempt to prevent pollution of our waters. It has offered special grants and advantages to municipalities to help them combat water pollution. Section 495 of the act also deals with pollution of water by oil. We should like to prevent pollution of our air by products of combustion from ships, and I am in agreement with the hon. member in his suggestion that we should attempt to prevent ships from polluting our waters by the discharge of garbage, oil, sewage and the like. This matter is already under consideration by my department in conjunction with the Department of National Health and Welfare. I would ask the committee to await further legislation on this matter either at the next session of parliament as an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act, or by way of some other legislation, because if we are to police the enforcement of such a regulation that would emanate from my hon. friend's amendment it might present some difficulties. We should like to have a chance to look at this. My officials would like to study the problem more closely with the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare in order to come up with something that will be sensible and at the same time really effective. This is why I ask the committee not to agree to this amendment at this time but to give us a chance to study more fully all the implications of this subject so that it could be policed in a proper way and really enforced in an efficient manner.


William Hector McMillan: I am not asking for legislation; I am just asking the governor in council to be empowered to make regulations when and if they wish to use them.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 12; nays, 34.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 29
carry?


Léon Balcer: Just before it carries I want to draw the attention of the committee to Bill No. C-86, to amend the Fisheries Act. Clause 4 of this bill states:
The governor in council may by order deem any substance to be a deleterious substance for the purposes of subsection (2).
Subclause (5) reads:
Every person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of an offence and is liable upon summary conviction,
(a)	for the first offence, to a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not less than one month and not more than six months, or to both such fine and imprisonment; and
(b)	for a second and each subsequent offence, to a fine of not less than three hundred dollars and not more than two thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not less than two months and not more than twelve months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.
In the long run this clause will probably have exactly the same effect as the amendment which my hon. friend wanted us to include in our legislation. If we have legislation and regulations under one department it would be extremely complicated if two or three departments were trying to police such legislation or regulations at the same time. I think the new bill to amend the Fisheries Act, particularly this clause, will have the effect of preventing pollution of our navigable waters by raw sewage or garbage.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
On clause 31-Observance of regulations.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, clause 31 says that every owner, master and person having the conduct of a vessel or raft shall obey the collision regulations, and so on. Does the term "raft" apply also to rafts of logs and things of that sort being towed or free of power, say floating? Do masters of the vessels towing logs have to comply with this clause? If so, what is done to make certain that the statute is obeyed with respect to minor and inland waters?


Léon Balcer: This clause applies to those rafts whether they are towed or not. I am sure it is the intention to cover rafts which carry logs. As far as the meaning of the clause and the way it is applied are concerned, it makes the owner, master or person having the conduct of such vessel or raft liable for damages. This is the way in which this clause can have some teeth, if I understand the hon. member's question correctly.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What lights are required by law on a boom of logs being towed by a tug at night?


Léon Balcer: We would have to have a look at the regulations. We have not that information with us, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
On clause 34-Extension of limitation of liability.
Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: This clause deals with the extension of the limitation of liability. It was drawn to my attention that there appeared to be some doubt whether it applied to the man who was master and also owner of a vessel. I believe the officials were going to give it some consideration. Are they now in a position to give us the information? Can the minister let us know what has happened in that regard?


Léon Balcer: Yes. When this clause was considered in the standing committee a question was raised, as my hon. friend says, whether or not limitation would apply to the liability of the master or member who is also the owner. My officers have expressed the view that the wording was such as to achieve this purpose. However, they undertook to discuss the matter further with the drafting officers of the Department of Justice. After such consultation they have now suggested a change in wording so that lines 44 and 45 would read as follows:
Actual fault or privity and to any person acting in the capacity of master or member of the crew of a ship and to any servant of the owner or of any person-
I believe that if the clause were so worded it would be clear that there is a limit to the liability of any person arising out of an act or an omission of a person in his capacity as master or member, regardless of the fault or privity. For this purpose, I would ask my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to move the appropriate amendment.


Mr. Monleith (Perth):: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 35 to 39 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 40-Application of penalties. Mr. Herridge: This is a rather interesting clause from my point of view. It reads, in part:
Where a fine is imposed under this act for which no specific application is provided, the
Narcotic Drug Control
court, justice of the peace or magistrate imposing the fine may direct that the whole or any portion of it may
(a) be applied in compensating any person for any wrong or damage that may have been sustained by the act or default in respect of which the fine is imposed;
My point is this: When a person whose craft was injured in a collision with an unlighted boom or barge, and the accident was the responsibility of the owner of this barge or boom, makes a charge to the magistrate, it is possible that the case will come before a local justice of the peace without very much knowledge of the circumstances. This seems to be the only place where a person can lay a charge against a person for a violation of the law and then collect the fine. As I see it the amount of the fine could be paid to the person who is laying the charge.
Now, this could influence the magistrate or justice of the peace in either one of two directions. First, because of his lack of knowledge of the circumstances he may levy an improper fine in lieu of damages or he may impose a fine having in mind the fact that this person ought to be compensated, and may lessen or increase the fine as a result of his opinion. The minister could perhaps explain why this section is included in this act.
Léon Balcer: This clause has been there for years and years, and I am informed that it has never been used. Actually, if the hon. member reads the clause itself, he will find that a person does not even have to lay the charge himself to collect the money. I am informed that although this clause has been in the act for years, it has never been applied to the knowledge of my officials.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very glad I raised the question because I know of persons whose small craft have suffered damages from other craft, but they were so poor they did not feel they could take action. I shall now make sure that they all know the law.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Claude 41 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time? Now?


Lionel Chevrier: Next sitting of the house.



PROVISION FOR CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF NARCOTICS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 7, consideration in committee of Bill No.
[Stage Direction]
Narcotic Drug Control
C-100, to provide for the control of narcotic drugs-Mr. Monteith (Perth)-Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Harold Edward Winch: At the time this matter was last under discussion, the Minister of Justice gave an explanation as to why the government could not accept or take any action on my recommendation concerning voluntary commitment. I believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare intends to say something about this matter, and for that reason I should like to take a couple of minutes of the committee's time before he speaks.
I was quite intrigued by the main argument that was used by the Minister of Justice in opposing the proposal relating to voluntary commitment for the treatment of narcotic addicts. He used, as an example, the mental health laws. He cited the fact that if one were mentally ill one had to be committed for treatment by law. I thought that in putting forth that argument he killed his own line of reasoning. I do not know what the legislative provisions are across Canada relating to mental health, but I do know the provisions in British Columbia. Up until a few years ago if one were mentally ill, the only way the individual could be handled was to have him committed to the mental institution by law. He was either committed by the order of a magistrate and one doctor who was obliged to sign the committal papers or he was committed by the signature of two doctors. However, that is not the situation now. If a person is suffering from a mental disability he is not obliged, automatically and axiomatically, to go through the process of being committed to the institution as an insane person. He can have a voluntary commitment, a commitment whereby the person knows that he requires treatment just the same as the person who has a certain condition in the way of disease or broken bones knows he must have treatment.
In British Columbia-and I am just using this province as an example because I know so well the situation and the legislation- instead of having to go under the impact of the law and be committed as an insane person, on examination by a doctor who feels that person requires some treatment for a mental disorder the person can, on the examination and recognition of the doctor, voluntarily sign himself or herself into the Crease clinic, just the same as at a general hospital for an acute disease or disability. He signs himself into a specific clinic of psychological medicine. It is all in the same area as the mental hospital but it is an entirely different building. On a doctor's recommendation, as I say, he voluntarily commits himself.

If, when I was speaking of voluntary commitment the Minister of Justice or the Minister of National Health and Welfare was under the impression that I thought he could just walk in and say, "I am a narcotic addict and I want treatment", let me say at once that I did not mean that at all. What I meant was this. If a person is a narcotic addict and wants to get that monkey off his back, to use an expression which I used the other day and which is common in the terminology of an addict; and if he sees a doctor and the doctor examines him and says that he is an addict, then the question I ask is this. Instead of the situation being as it will be without change in this present bill No. C-100, namely that of having to be actually under the Criminal Code or under this act picked up, committed and sentenced, why can there not be something whereby we can have a voluntary commitment as a narcotic addict, as we now have it in British Columbia and I believe in many of the other provinces, a commitment on a voluntary basis without going through that stigma, shall I say, of a commitment basically and actually under the law?
I just want to emphasize, as I tried to do the other day, that to many people a great deal depends upon a psychological attitude and approach. I feel most strongly that, where we have those who want to help themselves to be cured, there should be in our law some means whereby they can do it, or some provision that will differentiate between them and those whom the law is obliged to pick up and to compel to go through treatment. I feel quite strongly about this matter. I feel quite certain that I am correct about the psychological viewpoint of that type of person. When the minister speaks on this matter I hope he will tell us whether or not, on review, it is possible to cover that aspect which I feel to be of such great importance.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I wonder whether I might say a few words at this time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to deal with this matter, if I may.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is perfectly all right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the minister.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I recognize the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I regret that I was not able to be here when this bill was introduced. I should like to say a few words on this bill which I, along with other members in this committee, strongly support. It surprised me a little bit that the initiative in this

matter seemed to have been taken by the Minister of Justice. By saying that I am not implying that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has not shown great interest in this matter. However, it always puzzled me why, in a matter of this sort involving essentially matters having to do with the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Justice should have emerged as the spokesman for the administration. The first public intimation that was given of this measure was when the Minister of Justice was in British Columbia about two years ago. There, at a press conference, he announced the government's intention to proceed with legislation of this kind. At the time I suggested to the minister that I hoped this was a matter about which he had carefully consulted the Minister of National Health and Welfare because it was a matter that concerned the Department of National Health and Welfare in a large degree, although not entirely. I am therefore glad that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is here today to assume the functions that were so clandestinely and later so demonstrably taken away from him by the Minister of Justice.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Don't overdo it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think this bill marks a progressive step forward. The Minister of National Health and Welfare will have had the opportunity of having a great deal of background material in the department on this matter. He will have had the valuable experience of his officials, particularly the deputy minister and the solicitor of the department. In the bill there are some features that cause me to ask some questions and also to make one or two observations.
The idea of detention, as is provided in clause 15 of the bill, is I think an important and desirable step. However, if we are going to make fully effective the policy that is revealed in this bill I think we shall have to appreciate the fact that certain things not covered in the bill will have to be done. I am sure both ministers have had an opportunity, either directly or vicariously, of learning of the work that is being done in this field in Lexington, Kentucky by the government of the United States. I myself had the opportunity of visiting that institution with officials of the department, of ascertaining the extent of the success of the experiment there and also of learning of some of the inadequacies not of the care provided but of some of the follow-up practices which are not as effective as they might be.
It cannot be said that the detention, imposed or voluntary, of a drug addict in an institution such as that in Lexington is necessarily 100 per cent effective. One of the 90205-6-392
Narcotic Drug Control
reasons is the inadequate follow-up system that is or at least was practised in that institution. Under this bill it is not contemplated that one found guilty of trafficking in drugs shall necessarily spend his full life in an institution. If that was contemplated by the use of the word "indeterminate" there would be cause for further interrogation.
It would be interesting to learn from the Minister of National Health and Welfare what system will be used to follow up cases of drug addicts detained under the provisions of this act following judicial determination. The problem in this country is not as great as it is in the United States, because we have relatively fewer addicts. I think we have some 3,000 drug addicts in Canada.
If we are going to do an effective job in providing for treatment and rehabilitation while these people are detained, knowing the number of cases where drug addicts resort to their former practice after having abandoned it while being detained, we will want to establish an effective follow-up system.
The provincial governments have a responsibility in this matter and indeed they can play a very great part. After all, the health services of the federal government are limited in so far as treatment facilities are concerned. Under the provinces are to be found the most effective and efficient methods of providing for the health care of the people of our country. A policy of decentralization in that regard is the pattern of our country. I am sure no one wishes to disturb that.
It would be interesting to know what the prospects are for provincial co-operation, particularly from the provinces where the largest numbers of drug addicts are to be found. For instance, is the province of British Columbia prepared to co-operate in some way? If it did co-operate it could meet the point which the hon. member for Vancouver East has just raised.
With regard to voluntary commitment, I must say that in principle I fully share the hon. member's concern and his objective, as I think do most hon. members. The proposal is that individuals who have been found guilty of drug trafficking and who are placed in detention will serve the punishment provided for under the act but at the same time, it is presumed, because of the general statement made by the minister, they will be given curative attention; they will receive the rehabilitation processes that have been devised for users of drugs.
This will be a form of care which will cost some money, but wholly justifiable. We do not want unnecessary duplication if we can avoid doing so. It seems to me that, depending upon the type of institution, it would

Narcotic Drug Control
be wise for the provinces to co-operate fully, rather than to set up a series of institutions to serve a limited population.
If an individual suffering from drug addiction who had not committed a crime wishes to take advantage of this treatment, it seems to me there ought to be means provided to bring that about. I think one of the difficulties is the constitutional difficulty. In so far as this parliament is concerned there may be difficulty, under this act, in making it legislatively possible for an individual to receive treatment in such an institution. I doubt that the parliament of Canada would have the power-and perhaps the Minister of Justice will give us his views about this-to provide that an individual who had not committed a crime and who was not being charged with a crime in connection with trafficking should be placed in an institution, pursuant to a federal act.


Mr. Drysdale:: Does not clause 19 cover that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 
Jay Waldo Monteith: That is the reason.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, that is the reason, but often times when there is the repeal of an act an explanation is given of the differences between the two acts. In any event, there are no explanatory notes at all in this bill. When we come to the various clauses we will indicate how valuable this might have been.
I am sure there is wide approval of the general purposes of this bill. The bill will go a long way in the treatment of drug addicts, I am sure, even though the experiment of their treatment in institutions is not as yet a fully established fact. If we have the kind of follow-up system that is necessary, this could be an important reform and an important step forward.
The government has our full support in the initiative it has taken, but I would simply point out that if this follow-up is not pursued, much of the good will be lost, as I am sure the minister's officials would confirm. I have seen records of individuals in the institution at Lexington who had left the institution after a period of two years fully cured and fully relieved of the terrible disability under which they suffered. I have known other cases where as a result of a failure to follow this thing through, people have left the institution, gone out into the community and then reverted to their former habits of addiction.
The hon. member himself drew an analogy in terms of people receiving treatment for mental illness. As we all know, in the case of mental illness today the process of cure and rehabilitation does not end when a patient is discharged from an institution. Many people, after a period of confinement, are allowed to live outside where social workers and others follow their cases through and

give the help and guidance which are necessary. There are other cases where the patient never enters a mental institution; all the necessary treatment is carried on outside. Supervision of this kind is necessary, in my opinion, in order to make this act effective and if the minister can give us some information in this regard I am sure the committee will be interested.
It may be that the minister has in mind that the necessary supervision must be left to the provincial authorities. I can understand that, and it may be the best arrangement because of the difficulty of trying to supervise from the centre. Perhaps the ministers have the idea that the supervision will take place from the central institution provided under this act. In any event, these are points which engage our interest and which justify our understandable curiosity with regard to a measure which, I believe, deserves our full support.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Before clause 1 carries I should like to make a further statement. In reply to the hon. member for Essex East, I hope he does not think that the remarks he made at the beginning of his observations will prevent the Minister of Justice and myself from playing golf together or any such thing. We do not want to get angry at each other. Maybe the hon. gentleman has been carried away by his feelings to an undue extent, because he must have boycotted the speech made by the Minister of Justice on second reading in which my colleague set out in some detail the answers to some of the questions the hon. member has been asking.
In the bill, under the definition clause, "minister" means, with respect to part I, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and with respect to part II, the Minister of Justice. Clause 15, as the hon. member will see, is the first clause in part II and it is only logical, I think, that treatment, after this stage has been reached, should come under the Minister of Justice because he has responsibility for handling the institutions; the parole board comes under the Department of Justice, and so on. I know that if there are any further questions about this part of the bill the Minister of Justice will be glad to answer them.
I should like now to say a few words about the discussion we were having on Wednesday last when the house rose. At that time we were discussing the question of facilities for the reception on a voluntary basis of narcotic addicts who desired treatment and who did not come within the provisions of this bill. My colleague the Minister of Justice clearly explained the purpose of the control 90205-6-3924
Narcotic Drug Control
measures provided by this measure in connection with treatment. He also pointed out that the treatment of non-criminal addicts would be a matter entirely within the scope of provincial legislative authority.
It is understood, of course, that if a province enacts complementary legislation, a narcotic addict could voluntarily subject himself to committal procedure and thus secure the benefit of treatment. I gather, however, that what hon. members may have had in mind is some form of treatment program on a wholly voluntary basis that would not involve a formal committal procedure.
When he spoke a few minutes ago I believe the hon. member for Vancouver East corrected the impression which had been drawn from his earlier remarks in this respect. But I should like to go on and assure the committee of my support for and co-operation in any treatment program that may be provided under responsible and experienced auspices. This would, of course, include, to the extent necessary, medical supervision. We would be very glad to give consideration to any proposals which might be advanced in this regard, and would certainly contribute the benefit of our knowledge and experience to the furtherance of their success.
However, I would point out that there are certain difficulties which appear to be inherent in what may be described as a voluntary treatment program. I refer here to the necessity for the right of legal control of the individual undergoing treatment. It is the view of my department that desirable as it may be that an individual should be encouraged to seek treatment, if treatment is to be effective there must be a legal right to continue it for such period as is necessary. In other words, while voluntary application for treatment is an important factor as indicating a necessary motivation by the individual, there must be some means of ensuring that treatment does not wholly depend on the continuation of such motivation. Some provision must be made to the end that treatment can be carried on even though the addict himself feels he has reached the point where he no longer needs it.
While there has not hitherto been available in Canada any intensive or comprehensive treatment program for narcotic addicts, treatment has been available on a limited basis through a number of facilities. In many instances, these facilities have been privately operated. I am advised, however, that it has been the experience of those concerned with such institutions that although a person should be encouraged to accept voluntary commitment, there must be some form of

Narcotic Drug Control
legal procedure which would prevent him from discontinuing treatment whenever he wished.
I think the reasons for this are self-evident and I am sure hon. members would agree there is nothing unfair or prejudicial to an individual in requiring him to submit to treatment for whatever period of time competent authorities may feel is required.
While the expression "voluntary treatment" suggests a proper and humane approach to the problem, experience strongly suggests that the motivation of the individual addict sometimes needs critical examination. In some instances, this may stem merely from a desire to reduce a habit that has become too costly to support. Here there is clearly a necessity for legal control.
In other cases, the addict's motivation, though satisfactory in the first instance, may tend to disappear once withdrawal has been accomplished. Cessation of treatment at that point would not likely lead to continued abstinence from drugs and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served if he could discontinue at will.
These conclusions, I might add, are in accordance with views expressed by competent authorities at a conference held in the city of Vancouver in 1952 at which were represented various levels of interest in the problem of addiction in the community. They are also in line with the thinking of authorities in charge of the narcotic treatment hospital at Lexington, Kentucky, to which the hon. member for Essex East referred a moment ago, as well as of New York state authorities who are presently undertaking treatment programs on an experimental basis. As late as last Friday afternoon, as expressed during discussions that my officials had with New York state authorities, it was still their point of view that they must have legal control.
I can assure the committee that my department has been actively concerned with all aspects of treatment as it is currently being considered in various parts of the United States and in this country. In addition to maintaining direct liaison with authorities in various areas where experimentation in treatment is being carried out, our officials also work through the mental health advisory committee which is assisted by a special subcommittee on drug addiction.
A year ago, this subcommittee set up a working party under the chairmanship of Dr. Halliday who was referred to in this debate as the head of the British Columbia narcotic addiction foundation. This working party is charged with the task of examining and reporting on treatment and other health

aspects of addiction and, to my mind, points up the active and continuing interest being shown in this problem.
We would not be optimistic of the success of a program that was based solely on the voluntary desire of an addict and that was not accompanied by some right of custodial control. Moreover, we feel that the measures contemplated by this bill in leading to committal under provincial legislation for the purpose of treatment, do not depart substantially from those which would be necessary in any proper treatment program. It is our view that regardless of whether treatment is carried out in the institutions which are now being proposed or in institutions unrelated to those covered by this bill, the factor of compulsory detention and supervision would seem to be equally a requisite.
It goes without saying that any province would be free to institute a special treatment program separate and apart from that which this measure proposes. It could also count on our wholehearted co-operation in contributing whatever knowledge and experience that might be pertinent in making such a program successful.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister would permit me to ask a question at this point. If the provinces set up institutions of that kind, is the minister prepared to say now whether he could offer financial assistance under the national health program?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I was just about to refer to that subject.
In certain circumstances, it might even be possible for the dominion government to provide some financial assistance under the health grants program. Any project in this regard would, of course, have to be submitted through the province to receive consideration. I must say that if we were asked to provide assistance to a purely voluntary program, we would feel obliged to draw attention to the aspects of control and supervision to which I have made reference. This would not, however, preclude our helping to the greatest extent possible in any experimental project on a voluntary basis. Certainly, there is need for more research and experimentation than up to now has been carried out.
In this connection, I would like to conclude by quoting from a recent paper published in the New York state "Journal of Medicine". It is written by Dr. Larimore, deputy commissioner of the New York state department of health and Dr. Brill of the New York state department of mental hygiene, and covers their investigation of the so-called British treatment system with particular reference to

the need for further research. Speaking of the situation in the United Kingdom, the authors had this to say:
There is general scepticism about the effectiveness of existing methods of treatment, as well as a general dissatisfaction with the long term results which are generally described as marked by a very large proportion of recidivism or relapse-
Placing the patient in a hospital for withdrawal is certainly sound. Beyond that, in the treatment of the underlying condition, it must be recognized that neither we nor the British have at the present time a satisfactory treatment method for narcotic addiction.
Nevertheless there are a number of important reasons to believe that addiction is treatable and that better methods should be sought since "spontaneous cures" do occur, especially with increasing maturity, and it is a well known fact that older narcotic addicts are far fewer in number than young ones.
Further, some cases respond even to present treatment methods. However, the development of more successful treatment must await the results of research-
In both the United Kingdom and the United States, there is strong agreement as to the need for much basic research to be done in this field. Because of recent advancements in chemical and other technologies and in the theory of psychiatric drugs, there is better reason than ever before to expect constructive results from research.
I would just like to emphasize, in respect to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East about treatment centres, that we certainly feel the provinces can do this at any time they wish without conditions being attached. It is our view that this is a separate discipline. Over the years we have received requests, as has the Minister of Justice, from individuals and organizations for help in regard to treatment along the lines we have advanced.
Mr. Chairman, I should like personally to congratulate the Minister of Justice for proposing this new concept of assisting and curing, if possible, narcotic addicts. I should also like to pay tribute to the late Mr. E. P. Winch, the father of the hon. member for Vancouver East. It was evident from a review of old files only last week that this gentleman while a member of the legislative assembly for British Columbia, was perhaps the first to suggest the establishment of treatment centres and that he urged consideration in this regard many, many times.
I feel that is all I need to say at the moment Mr. Chairman.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, before making any comment in regard to the statement which the minister has just made, may I express my great appreciation of his kind remarks in relation to the studies and work that were undertaken by my late father some 25 years ago, when he was a member of the British Columbia legislature.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Narcotic Drug Control


Harold Edward Winch: It is because of the work which he did in that field, as well as in others, that I know I can safely say that irrespective of politics, he is revered by all who knew him in British Columbia.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to what the minister has had to say this afternoon. The viewpoint which he has put forward places emphasis on the remarks made the other day by the Minister of Justice, but I must say he has not convinced me as yet. I am quite certain there are not insurmountable obstacles in the way of achieving what I have suggested.
In regard to his remarks about separate provincial institutions being established for the treatment of addicts on a voluntary basis, I should like to think them over before I come to any decision. I feel quite honestly that, in view of the expenditures which the taxpayer must make through the federal treasury in order to handle this problem in providing the expert professional care which is required, and the building of the institutions, I am not certain whether there is any clear foundation for duplication in this field.


Mr. Broome:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Harold Edward Winch: Perhaps the hon. member will allow me to continue for a moment or two, following which I shall answer his questions if I am able to.
I believe we must pay special attention to this question so as to avoid duplication. I am not yet convinced that a plan could not be worked out, but I do wish to emphasize immediately I completely agree that even if a method of voluntary commitment is worked out on some basis, whether federally, provincially or jointly, before a person goes into any institution for treatment of a corrective nature for narcotic addiction it can only be done on a legal basis under which the person is accepted under certain controls, regulations, discipline, timing and care. I do not know of anything in the constitution or in law under which that can be done as part and parcel of the availability of the opportunity to take curative treatment in an institution by a person who volunteers to go in. Therefore I say, sir, I do not think this is an insurmountable obstacle in any way, although it has been raised by the minister.
One could speak for a long time on this and be repetitive; therefore I am not going to comment any more on it. I do not think I can add anything to what I said the other day or to what I said today.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise just one other matter before I sit down because I think I can only raise it in the discussion of clause 1. I regret

Narcotic Drug Control
that I cannot be here this evening. I know this is my responsibility but I do feel that since I have been at the United Nations I owe the courtesy of my attendance at the dinner tonight in honour of the president of the United Nations. Therefore I hope you will not mind, sir, if I change the subject at this time.
I think a great many of us in the committee, and particularly members from British Columbia, would appreciate it very much if the Minister of Justice could give us a clearer picture of the basis of his thinking on the establishment of narcotic treatment centres. We would appreciate it if he could give us as fully as possible his view of the basis upon which they are to be established. I do not have to reiterate to him my interest in this matter and my desires. If I am wrong I should like to be told so, but I should like to know why in the announcement made by the minister through the provincial member for Chilliwack there is to be a $5 million institution built at Matsqui. It is not the location at Matsqui that I am interested in, it is the institution itself and that is what I should like the minister to comment on. Statements are being made by those interested in this matter in British Columbia. Editorials of a somewhat critical nature are being written. I am not going to comment on whether they are right or wrong. That is what I want the minister to discuss. The Minister of Justice, together with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, are now breaking new ground on this question of narcotic addiction and how it should be approached. Undoubtedly mistakes will be made. We shall never get anywhere if we are afraid of making mistakes. I am certain that the two ministers and all of us are prepared to learn by mistakes and we are prepared to make some. We realize that this is a new field of endeavour and that a great many troubles will have to be faced. But why, in the breaking of this new ground, has it been decided to erect a $5 million institution-if this figure is correct and I presume it is because it was given out by the member for that area-on the information and authority of the Minister of Justice? Is there a good reason why this policy is being followed? Is there a better reason to move perhaps-and this may sound amazing coming from me-a little bit slower, to feel our way, to see how it works? Then if you need a larger institution you have the experience upon which to move.
I believe that some of the questions being asked in the editorials are good. I hope that the Minister of Justice has not, all of a sudden perhaps, been overcome a little by the magnitude of the great task which he and the Minister of National Health and Welfare

are undertaking. I hope that some of his officials-and I have one particularly in mind who I know likes to do things on a grand scale-have not influenced the minister too much in this direction. I can see that the minister knows the individual in his department to whom I am referring. I do hope that he will give us a policy statement and as detailed a picture as possible on how they decided on the magnitude of this particular institution which has already been announced, and why the thing was handled in that way instead of perhaps, as I said before, feeling the way before such a terrific expenditure is made on one institution.


Ernest James Broome: May I ask the hon. member a question now with regard to the point he made on duplication of facilities and the fact that he thought this would be perhaps wasteful of the taxpayer's dollar if it was not carried out all the way by the federal government. Would he not agree that we in British Columbia already have facilities which can take care of voluntary committals and which as we know do have psychiatric and skilled medical staff to handle the particular problem of drug addicts? We already have means of voluntary committals at the Crease clinic at Essondale.


Harold Edward Winch: No, I am afraid not. I believe the hon. member when he spoke made reference to the narcotic foundation. The narcotic foundation in British Columbia is doing a wonderful job and should have received much more support than it has received up to now.
The hon. member referred to the Crease clinic. I say that this is not the answer because although there can be voluntary committal to the Crease clinic for certain disorders after consultation with a doctor, a person can only stay a certain length of time in the Crease clinic. Unless they have changed the regulations since I was a member of the legislature the period is three months. That is what it was when the act was passed. As the hon. member knows, I was leader of the opposition at that time. It is only a temporary stay for curative purposes if you can be handled. It is only of a temporary nature. I can assure the hon. member from my knowledge of narcotic addicts that you do not in the majority of cases bring about a cure, especially anything of a lasting nature, in a matter of three months. A longer period of time than that is required. As a general rule I believe it is well over one year. I believe, if I heard correctly a little while ago, the hon. member for Essex East said the treatment had to be conducted for a period of from one year to three years and then the doctors are not always completely

sure. So I say that the Crease clinic very definitely is not the answer. I doubt very much if they receive very many in that institution with a narcotic drug problem.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I should like to supplement the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I am concerned particularly with the treatment centres, and the provisions to which the hon. member for Vancouver East has already alluded, particularly as they relate to the narcotic addiction foundation of British Columbia. At the moment this is the only community based centre offering treatment and rehabilitation services for narcotic addicts, including those who are discharged from federal or provincial correctional institutions. This organization is the only one with any practical experience in this particular field. I think we would do well to listen to suggestions made by this organization with regard to treatment centres.
I have received correspondence from the director of this foundation with regard to this particular bill. The letter is dated June 6, and reads in part as follows:
Reference is made to "treatment centres", and one hopes that the federal government will soon begin the construction of such a centre in this area. 1 would draw your attention again to our belief that such an institution should be located close to the metropolitan area, the further away it is the less effective will be the personal communication and the liaison necessary between the institutional and community (rehabilitation and after care) services, and it is the latter, or rather the absence of the latter, that has been the major cause of breakdown in various treatment programs.
The point with which I am concerned is the fact that the treatment centre is going to be established at Matsqui, about 50 miles away from the centre of Vancouver. Second, we already have this narcotic addiction foundation, and I am still not too clear despite the discussion last day, as to how it fits into the over-all picture. I do not believe it fits in with clause 19 of this bill because then it would be considered as part of a penitentiary. In view of the objectives of the foundation, which I should like to put on the record, I think it is important to consider how the foundation is going to be placed in the picture.
In the fifth annual report, 1960-61, the president, Mr. Carson, set out the following objectives:
As a community-based agency, the narcotic addiction foundation is in an ideal position to carry out the following functions:
(a)	to accept, on a voluntary basis, any or all narcotic addicts who request help;
(b)	to work closely with the probation officers (as and when appointed) in the after care and rehabilitation program of the federal government;
(c)	to act as a training centre for physicians, social workers, nurses, volunteer groups, and others directly concerned with the rehabilitation of the addict in the community;
Narcotic Drug Control
(d)	to carry out an educational program among such groups as: professional personnel; educators; adolescent and young people's groups; employers; service clubs, etc;
(e)	to initiate or co-ordinate research into such aspects of drug addiction as the following:
(i)	the natural history of addiction;
(ii)	the epidemiology of addiction;
(iii)	the effectiveness of a voluntary treatment program, and if there is a group of addicts that will respond to such an attempt;
(iv)	the relationship between narcotic and other forms of addiction;
(v)	the relationship between narcotic addiction and other social disorders.
To achieve these objectives, the foundation will need to become an increasingly independent organization, feeling free to draw on financial and other resources from all levels of government and from the community we are attempting to serve.
The point that interests me particularly is how this foundation is going to fit into the new legislation. Second, this is the only organization of which I know with any direct experience in the treatment of addicts, and it is located in downtown Vancouver. It is a voluntary treatment centre which is treating, I think, approximately eight in-patients as well as a considerable number of out-patients.


Mr. Fulton:: Perhaps I should answer the questions asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East and referred to by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, because I would not want some of the things that have been said about this new centre to go unanswered. I do recall that at the very end of the debate on Wednesday of last week I had reached some of the comments that had already been made out on the west coast. I said that to me it seemed to be a pretty peremptory dismissal of a far-reaching new proposal to say, as the party of my friend in British Columbia did, that it was altogether quite wrong and a proven failure. In so far as I have not even seen the plans for this building as yet because they have not been completed, I am quite sure that Mr. Barrett, a C.C.F. member of the legislature in British Columbia, has not seen the plans or had any discussions about the proposal.
I notice there is a doctor in Vancouver who is reported to be an expert in the field, and who has also condemned the institution in a telephone call from Montreal to a British Columbia newspaper. Dr. Tyhurst has not telephoned me as yet, so I do not know the real basis of his objection. I do want to make it clear that in devising this plan, in devising the details of the custody for treatment program, the officials of my department have had lengthy discussions with officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare. This department is constantly in touch with capable and thoughtful people in this field, as well as having capable and thoughtful officials in their own service. In addition, the

Narcotic Drug Control
officials of my department, particularly the commissioner of penitentiaries and other members of the correctional planning committee, who first began the study of the development of the federal institutional program to treat narcotic addicts rather than merely incarcerate them, themselves had discussions in the course of their study with senior correctional officers in California, where we are informed they are now developing a plan much along the same lines as we have here envisaged. They also had discussions with officials, psychiatrists and psychologists and other persons in Vancouver interested in the problem, including members of the university staff. I understand that Dr. Tyhurst is head of the University of British Columbia department of psychiatry. Apparently Dr. Tyhurst was not one of those with whom the committee consulted in Vancouver two years ago, but other representatives of the university were consulted.
I am not in a position at the moment to give a blueprint of this institution because we have not drawn up the plans as yet. We are consulting architects now and of course we will lay down, in consultation with the Department of National Health and Welfare, the general design and purpose of the institution and ask the architects to produce the plan of a building which will carry those purposes into effect.
In so far as the location at Matsqui is concerned, may I say that I have learned it is only some 50 minutes from the centre of downtown Vancouver. This could hardly be said to be remote. The route of the new trans-Canada highway, according to our information, is going to pass Matsqui. I am told that a journey of 45 minutes, at the maximum, from downtown Vancouver will take one to the institution. There are many people in our cities today who spend far more than 45 minutes struggling to and from work. I do not believe we are really putting obstacles in the way of any professional person who desires to come there to assist us or in the way of the members of the narcotic foundation if they want to get in touch with the treatment centre at Matsqui. We feel, however, that we must have the institution physically removed from downtown Vancouver, if for no other reason than that we do want to have some element of control over the persons who pass by and who may thus introduce narcotics into the institution.
You cannot have an institution of this kind located in downtown Vancouver with the kind of drug trafficking and organized trafficking that we know exists, and expect to successfully keep narcotics from being smuggled into the institution. I would not guarantee that we can completely prevent it at Matsqui,

but we will have a better chance of controlling things around the periphery so people will not have a chance of caching narcotics, then picking up the caches and getting them inside, than if it were in a huge city.
As to the criticism that it is going to be too big-that is, that it is too big and will have too many inmates-may I say that it has never been our intention simply to have an institution in which some 400 narcotic addicts are all treated on an identical pattern. The institution might well be capable-and this we have in mind-of operating on the basis of separate clinical units with perhaps 80 patients or 100 patients or inmates in each unit. Just because it is going to be physically capable of housing perhaps 400 or more people, it does not mean that we have decided that every one of those inmates is going to receive absolutely equal treatment. In planning the institution we have in mind that it should be so designed that it can be capable of being operated in smaller units, although all contained in the same general area.
I think I should just say that one purpose at least which it will achieve is the segregation of all the criminal drug addicts in British Columbia from the non-criminal addicts. Not until we have done that can we really start treatment programs on, to some extent, an experimental basis and it will have to be on an experimental basis because no compulsory treatment program has ever before been designed or attempted in Canada. The first requisite therefore is segregation. Then we can test out the treatment program and develop it as we along. That is absolutely impossible to do under the present circumstances.
We intend to proceed on an experimental basis. We intend to consult extensively and continuously with the experts in this field; I refer to the medical and psychiatric experts. We are not going to go blindly ahead on the assumption that we can draw up a blueprint of treatment without consultation; of course we are not going to do that. May I point out that this building will not possibly be ready for complete operation within a matter of two years. It has only just been decided where the location is to be. There is plenty of time for consultation and for us to learn and to acquire the additional benefit of the views of others over and above those with whom, as I have pointed out and emphasized, our officials have already discussed the matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a
question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I just finish this one sentence? I appreciate the reasonable approach of the hon. member for Vancouver East. He expressed concern. He asked for

reassurance. I hope I have given it to him.
I also hope that he will urge on those who are interested in this field that they should not at this great distance, when the bare outlines of the plan have just been announced, make these very sweeping statements which are calculated to prejudice the operation even before it starts. Let us at least have the opportunity of discussion and exchange of views. We can probably learn and profit by suggestions and we are quite prepared to do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I presume that the largest and most vigorous drug addict population in Canada at the moment is in Vancouver, although I do not know what the statistics are.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: The minister says that is correct. That fact was undoubtedly in the minister's mind when a location in British Columbia was selected for the new institution. However, having in mind the vacillation or the movement of the drug addict population and the fact that Montreal has been a centre and that Toronto has been a centre, I wonder whether the minister has given adequate consideration to the location. Might it not have been better to locate it in between the extremities of our country?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think one of the answers to that question is this. It must be recognized that there are in Vancouver experts or researchers in this field to an extent to which they are not found at the moment in other cities. Our thought was that we might well ultimately have an institution in British Columbia, one in Ontario to serve the Toronto district need and one in Quebec, probably near Montreal, to serve that area where there is also a concentration of addicts. But by far the greatest concentration is in Vancouver. It so far outweighs the others that it was perfectly clear that the first institution should be established to service that area.


Harold Edward Winch: Actual addicts do not move a great deal.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Since the key to the program is the after care and rehabilitation of narcotic addicts and as it is estimated that about 60 per cent of those in Vancouver were born and raised in Vancouver and they would have to return from the treatment centre some 50 miles or 60 miles outside of Vancouver, I was wondering how the rehabilitation will be conducted. Will there also be another centre in Vancouver to which they will go
Narcotic Drug Control
for after care treatment or will the treatment be finished at Matsqui and then they will just return to Vancouver from there?


Mr. Fulion:: No. It is not envisaged that they would be kept in the institution at Matsqui for the whole time until they are pronounced fit subjects to be released from institutional custody and then turned out and sent back to Vancouver with no acclimatization as it were. As the program of rehabilitation is developed there may well be hostels in Vancouver or in much closer to Vancouver and the parole board, on the advice of the medical and psychiatric experts will supervise the move of inmates from the institution into the hostel or from the hostel into employment if we can find it for them. This would be the objective while they are still in the hostel, working in the daytime at useful occupations. Then gradually they will be released from the hostel and live their own lives in their own homes although under the supervision of the national parole board. That is the sort of program we have in mind, although I do not want to be taken as giving a blueprint of it at this moment.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Possession of narcotics.
Mr. Roberge:: Clause 3 deals with possession. I want to refer the minister to his remarks on Wednesday last as found at page 5980 of Hansard, where he said there would not be a minimum punishment. The other act provided for a minimum punishment. If procedure was by way of indictment it was a minimum of six months plus a fine of $200, and at the discretion of the court, whipping. If it was by summary conviction, the minimum punishment was still six months and the minimum fine was also $200. In his remarks the other day, as found on this same page, the minister said the government thought it would be better to leave the discretion to the court as to a minimum. If we are to break this trend with regard to the possession of narcotics I would think, speaking personally, that there should be a minimum. Will the minister enlarge on his remarks on that topic? The same statement, of course, will apply to the other clauses except the clause on importing and exporting.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I understand that in the Senate committee report, it was indicated that the general feeling of the committee was that there should be no minimum but that the maximum, of course, should be much more severe than it had been. These are the
6214	HOUSE OF
Narcotic Drug Control
steps that have been taken in this new legislation with the exception of the case of importation or export and in this instance there is actually a minimum sentence. Otherwise, however, it was felt advisable not to have a minimum sentence but to increase the maximum.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Trafficking in narcotics. Possession for purpose of trafficking. Offence.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make one or two remarks on this particular clause, primarily on the question of the punishment of life imprisonment. During discussion on the recent amendments to the Criminal Code I think it was fairly clearly pointed out to the house that we were retaining the death penalty in some instances because it was a deterrent to the crime of murder.
In 1960 I introduced a bill amending the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. At that time I tried to distinguish between a user and a non-user of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking and suggested there should be a sentence of death or imprisonment for life imposed for this offence.
The thing that concerns me particularly about the clause now before us is that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in his earlier remarks when referring to the Senate committee, said as reported at page 5980 of Hansard for June 7:
The report of the Senate committee recommended that trafficking, regardless of its purpose, should be made a costly and hazardous undertaking in terms of a penalty. While the Senate committee did recommend that there be mandatory minimums for second or subsequent offences for trafficking, it was the view of the enforcement authorities that a more effective deterrent would lie in the increase of the maximum penalty and that the courts should be empowered to impose within the framework of a lengthy maximum what might be an appropriate penalty for trafficking.
The minister went on to say:
The sentence which may be imposed has been raised to life imprisonment. In this way parliament will have indicated clearly the seriousness with which it regards trafficking offences and the courts can, therefore, take cognizance of this in fixing appropriate penalties.
The Miniser of Justice is reported at page 5986 of Hansard as having made the following statement:
The law relating to the suppression of trafficking, then, should be sufficient in terms of punishment reasonably to deter the would-be trafficker from engaging in that form of activity and, if it does not do so, it should be adequate to protect society against him when he persists.
I was very impressed by the statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver East, who has been noted in this house as an abolitionist. At page 5994 of Hansard he is reported as having said:


There is also the clause that deals with trafficking. I am discussing it only in principle. A person can have no sympathy for one who breaks the law, no sympathy at all for one who commits homicide and, of course, no sympathy for one who traffics in narcotics. I think about the lowest depths that any man or woman can sink to is to be a trafficker in narcotics. A murderer kills and that is it. But one who traffics in drugs, who brings a person to addiction, to that insatiable craziness, makes an absolute hourly and daily hell for life for the addict. I, therefore, have no sympathy for him, and I agree that for the trafficker there should be a penalty of up to life.
I would point out that the hon. member said quite clearly, following up his philosophy, that there should be a penalty of up to life, but I felt-and I am putting my own interpretation on his words-that he came very close to advocating the death sentence for this offence.


Harold Edward Winch: No. That will be the day.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: The point that concerns me is this. A survey was recently made by the narcotic addiction foundation. They sent out questionnaires to over 339 young people in Vancouver. I understand the questionnaire was not limited to particular areas where narcotics are a problem. The findings of this survey are quite interesting. For example, 19.5 per cent of the 18 year olds said they had an opportunity to use heroin, and some 50 per cent of those in the 15-18 years of age category said they had an opportunity to use heroin while they were drinking.
In the last two years the narcotic addiction foundation has treated some 285 patients. Of that number 45 per cent of the males and 48 per cent of the females were drug addicts by the age of 20 years. I am concerned that these very, very young people are exposed to the dangers of drugs. I feel that a trafficker who is either a user or a non-user himself- and I think it is more serious in the case of the non-user-should be subject to the maximum deterrent.
Logically, since we said in connection with the amendments to the Criminal Code that capital punishment was a deterrent to somebody who wanted to commit a robbery, for example, or to various types of minder, it seems to me that we have here the most obvious case for the maximum deterrent. I say this because in the case of a trafficker, especially in the case of a trafficker who is a non-user, the prime incentive is the monetary return that he gets. I think in these circumstances we are justified in imposing the maximum deterrent, which is the sentence of death.
Accordingly I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway:
That clause 4 (3) be amended by adding after the word "life" in line six, the words "or sentenced to death".


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I could not help but note with interest the tact that the mover of this amendment quoted some of the remarks I made the other day. I want the hon. member and this committee to know that I meant every word I said. There is no question whatsoever in my mind that one of the most heinous crimes which can be committed is the illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs.
I agree with the hon. member that the worst of these traffickers is the non-user, because he is motivated wholly and solely by the profit motive. That was the reason why during my remarks last week I added to the words used by the Minister of Justice "demand and supply", the words "and profit". I pointed out that I thought if we could by this bill directly, or in co-operation with the provinces, wipe out the profit motive we would take a major step forward in wiping out the entire narcotics problem.
However, I think the hon. member and the committee know that I still stand in complete opposition to the death penalty. I think it is inhuman, unchristian, unnecessary and is no deterrent. I know, from speaking to many people who have been serving terms of life imprisonment that a life sentence is a pretty horrible thing to contemplate. These people are under regimentation every hour of their lives and are denied meeting with society.
In speaking to the amendment directly, if my memory is correct there is only one country in the world which has the death penalty for drug trafficking, and that is Iran. In the not too distant past Iran was one of the greatest producers of narcotic drugs for illicit trafficking. Iran also had one of the largest percentages of population in the world of people who were addicts. I am speaking from memory, but I believe that only about three years ago they had in the neighbourhood of 325,000 known addicts in Iran. That is why in 1959 Iran took a major step forward and opened up treatment clinics for drug addicts. In two years 65,000 addicts have been treated in these clinics. But they also provided the death penalty as the ultimate punishment for any key person who was engaged in the growing or illicit trafficking of narcotics.
I had the opportunity of speaking to two of the cabinet ministers from Iran this year at the United Nations. They have been able to make great steps forward, but they have found they can get results without having to resort to the death penalty. I am sorry that after the progressive thoughts which have been expressed by the hon. member he should be so reactionary and retrogressive as to move this amendment.
Narcotic Drug Control


John Ferguson Browne: We
have had a good deal of discussion in the house on capital punishment in the last year or so. I do not think the argument put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver East should carry too much weight in this debate, because the house did not accept his views on capital punishment before, and he has added nothing to them at this time.


Harold Edward Winch: It has gone a long way, though.


John Ferguson Browne: I am
one of those who held strong views in favour of the retention of the death penalty. However, after listening to a number of other members express the view that for certain kinds of murder capital punishment is no deterrent I felt I could support the government measure brought forward exempting certain crimes from the death penalty.
Nevertheless, the hon. member for Vancouver East has agreed that the trafficker in narcotics is at least as bad as the worst type of murderer, and the other members of this house believe that the worst type of murderer should be sentenced to death. Thus I think he has put forward a fair argument for saying that a trafficker in narcotics should be sentenced to death. The hon. member does not believe a trafficker should be sentenced to death, because he does not believe murderers should be sentenced to death; but the rest of the house believes they should be sentenced to death.
I think the hon. member was wrong in saying there was only one country which prescribed the death penalty-


Harold Edward Winch: I said there was only one to my knowledge.


John Ferguson Browne: I
noticed an article in the Globe and Mail of November 19, 1960 entitled "Dope Pushers Face Death". It read:
Bangkok. Nov. 16 (Reuters)-Heroin and morphine manufacturers and peddlers face the death sentence or life imprisonment under a bill approved by the Thai cabinet today.
This seems to be a growing problem. A murderer does, of course, cause the death of a person but a trafficker in narcotics may ruin the lives of several people, perhaps of hundreds. Having accepted the view that capital punishment is a unique deterrent and that it should be retained in Canada I suggest there is no more suitable course for the house to take than to apply it to those who traffic in narcotics and I wholeheartedly support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. I hope it will be accepted by the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I feel I should say now that the government, while appreciating fully the

Narcotic Drug Control sentiments of the hon. members who have spoken in support of this amendment, is unable to accept it. This is not because we disagree with them as to the despicable nature of the crime of trafficking in narcotics, particularly when engaged in for motives of profit and not, for instance, to support a craving arising from personal addiction. The trafficker who is not himself an addict and who puts this substance into circulation deserves condemnation in language stronger than one could devise to describe him.
The fact of the matter is that we have decided, and recommended to the house, and the house has approved, that generally speaking the grounds for capital punishment should be restricted rather than enlarged. I know that it is still a potential penalty for those guilty of treason or piracy but broadly speaking capital punishment is now restricted to those who kill as a result of planning and deliberation. We think it would be completely inconsistent with that principle to enlarge the types of crimes to which capital punishment is now applicable so as to include trafficking in narcotics.
May I remind the committee that not very long ago the penalty for trafficking, for whatever purpose, was seven years. It is only about six years ago that the maximum penalty was increased to 14 years which it presently is under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. We are now providing for a maximum penalty of life imprisonment which represents a substantial and real increase in the severity of the penalty. I would ask hon. members to remind themselves that a person convicted and sentenced for trafficking on a second or any subsequent offence will be liable to an indeterminate sentence and in these circumstances he would be released only on the certificate of the parole board and would be under supervision of the parole board for life. In these ways we think, first, we have provided a sufficient increase in the maximum penalty to indicate to the courts, the country as a whole and the traffickers themselves the detestation in which this crime is held and to provide the courts with sufficient means of ordering detention in the case of these offences. If this does not work the first time, an offender [DOT] will be subject to an indeterminate sentence which would have the effect of his being under supervision for life even if he should be released from prison.
On these general grounds, therefore, I am unable to accept the amendment. There is a particular ground, too, with respect to the drafting. It will be observed that clause 4 now provides that every person who violates subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable 

offence and is liable to imprisonment for life. This relates to all traffickers, whether the trafficking results from personal addiction or whether it falls into the still viler class of trafficking for profit. The penalty can be exacted with respect to both kinds of traffickers. Therefore, the effect of the amendment would be to make all traffickers liable to the death penalty. I appreciate that this is a technical matter, and that it could probably be dealt with. Nevertheless, the effect of the amendment would be as I have indicated- a person who is forced into drug trafficking because he himself is addicted and has no other means of sustaining his drug habit would be liable to the effect of the amendment. Thus, though I appreciate and to some extent accept the sentiments of the mover of the motion I am unable to go all the way with him and accept his amendment.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I think the minister has confirmed the interpretation which I myself was placing on this amendment, because he has said it was an alternative to life imprisonment. I think that is what should be hanging over the heads of these people who are drug traffickers-the possibility that they may be executed. The minister has clearly drawn to the attention of the committee that this was exactly what I was trying to do. Also, the trafficker who is not a user himself is purely in the business for the sake of the financial reward and I can see no value in attempting the rehabilitation of an individual of this type. He goes into it consciously. I would suggest such an individual causes more hardship and misery than a murderer who kills one person, because in the trafficking of narcotics, as we have seen in the city of Vancouver, he can ruin the lives of approximately 3,000 individuals.
I feel the state should not be obliged to pay approximately $2,000 per year to maintain a person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment for the crime of trafficking. I do not think the state should be required or prepared to go to that expense, as those individuals are involved in this business solely with the motive of profit. I think that has been borne out by the fact that the Mafia decided, after its Appalachian conference, because sentences had been increased and enforcement was becoming stronger, to get out of the business. That is exactly the result which I hope will come from the inclusion of the death penalty. There may never be a case where it has to be carried out but, if we consider it as a deterrent under the Criminal Code in respect of those amendments put forth regarding the crime of murder, surely it

will be more of a deterrent to those individuals in the field of trafficking with the sole motive of making a profit.
(Translation):


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, when the amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with capital punishment were under consideration, I mentioned that traffickers, those who promote the sale of narcotics-not the drug addicts, but the traffickers-should also be liable to the death penalty.
An amendment is being introduced today and, in my opinion, a distinction is in order. There are actually two types of drug traffickers: first, those who are drug addicts themselves and who sell drugs for the leader of a drug ring; and then those who are not addicted but who peddle drugs here and there.
Narcotics are being sold in universities, in colleges, in a word, in all spheres of society.
It has been said that capital punishment applies only to a criminal convicted of capital murder. According to me, the worst murderer is the person who is responsible for drug addiction, who sells drugs to people who will develop the habit which, in time, may become compulsive and possibly make criminals out of the addicts. In fact they are victims. It is the trafficker who is the true culprit, the real murderer. He is the one who prepares murderers through his activities.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the proposal made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Drysdale). Indeed, in spite of all the amendments to the law and of the R.C.M.P.'s work throughout the country, the latter cannot always get to the brains of drug traffic rings.
The worst individual is not the one who, having become an addict himself, must peddle drugs to satisfy his own needs, but the individual who has set up vast traffic rings. The latter is fully conscious of what he does. His only concern is to make big profits for himself. In my opinion, that is the worst kind of criminals we have in Canada and capital punishment should be their penalty.
For those reasons, I am in favour of the amendment.


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great attention to what the mover of the amendment had to say and to the answer given by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton).
As the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) has just stated, we have before us a bill
Narcotic Drug Control
dealing with what may be the foulest crime society has to cope with.
Many lawyers can see for themselves the pernicious effects narcotics have on an individual.
All means possible should be taken to protect society against traffickers. For the protection of society, capital punishment is imposed on those who commit capital murder. They have to die to pay their debt to society. But who could tell all the murders committed not by the victims of traffickers but by the traffickers themselves, who are, as far as we are concerned, members of the underworld.
These traffickers unfortunately operate on a great scale in many places and especially in Montreal as far as the province of Quebec is concerned.
Youth must be protected. All possible means must be taken to avoid the social disturbances caused by drug users. We must do everything to curb this social evil.
That is why I congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Drysdale) for his amendment. Nothing must be neglected to give the fullest effect to the legislation we are considering now.
I think all hon. members have the same object in mind: to check this plague and make sure that the penalties will be as severe as can be for those who go about spreading social death around them. By spreading death, I mean that their victims become poor human trash. That is why they are not entitled to any consideration from society since they do not have any for anybody, their only concern being to satisfy their greed.
For those reasons, I will vote for the amendment proposed by the member for Burnaby-Richmond.
(Text):


Mr. Payne:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to give my unqualified support to the amendment presented by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. I feel very strongly that there is too much soft soap handed around, and too much questionable sympathy given to those individuals who perpetuate some of the most insidious crimes known to humanity. I feel that if, by the inclusion of the death penalty for those individuals who are convicted of trafficking in narcotics-not necessarily because they are addicted to the use of narcotics-we will in any way be providing a further deterrent, it is an obligation on all members of this house to do so.

Narcotic Drug Control


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is the committee ready for the question?


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, I find myself in a difficult position and should like to ask for further information. I fully intended to vote against this amendment but have not been able to resist the feeling, after listening to the last two or three speakers, that the matter is not as simple as I thought. I should like to ask one or two questions of the Minister of Justice who can perhaps clarify the situation a little further.
Much has been said in the last few minutes about the situation growing worse, and that the penalties provided at this time are not sufficient. Part of the answer given by the Minister of Justice indicated that he felt the additional penalties might help take care of the situation. I should like him to comment further in that regard. Perhaps the minister has given the answer to this question while I was absent, but I should like to ask him if any comparisons can be made with other jurisdictions or places where the death penalty has been imposed for this crime and, if so, could he make some reference to the results?
I feel there is great responsibility involved in voting for the addition of the death penalty, yet I cannot take lightly what has been said by the mover of the amendment and other hon. members who have spoken subsequently. I do not think it is fair to ask the Minister of Justice to speak again on this but I would be glad if he would.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Part of the question has been answered already in that there are I think two countries we know of, and possibly a third, which provide the death penalty. One is Iran where they have, according to my information, 1,400,000 addicts as against our 3,100 known criminal addicts. The other is Thailand. The death penalty was introduced there much too recently for us to have any information. I am told that the third one is possibly nationalist China. These are the only countries where the death penalty is, according to our information and our present supposition, provided for the offence of trafficking. I remind the hon. member who probably came in after I had spoken earlier that six years ago the maximum penalty was seven years. At that time it was raised to 14 years. We are now raising it to life imprisonment so that a trafficker can be put away for life. If by any chance he should be released and then recommit his offence he is automatically subject to an indeterminate sentence and to supervision for the rest of his natural life. Therefore it cannot be said the penalty being provided is other than very severe.
Let me emphasize again that as the amendment is drawn it makes no distinction between the trafficker who traffics to support his own craving for drugs and those who are traffickers for profit. Therefore even the trafficker who was forced into trafficking because of his own craving for the drug would be liable to the death penalty. We are not able to accept the amendment.


Mr. Deschaieleis:: I should like to ask a further supplementary question of the minister pursuant to the point raised by the hon. member for Greenwood. Do we have any statistics showing that some of the murders which have been committed in Canada during the past years have been committed under the influence of a narcotic?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have no statistics on that point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is it not a fact that we have some statistics on the matter but they do not reveal any real influence along alarming lines such as those that would agitate the hon. member for Greenwood?
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 7; nays, 44.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Will the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe advise the committee which way he voted? He was not seen by the Clerk Assistant.
(Translation):


Mr. Dubois:: Mr. Chairman, I voted for the amendment.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 8-Procedure in prosecution for trafficking.
Paul Joseph James Martin: This will relieve the Minister of Justice, I know. I do not propose to repeat the argument of the other night when we alleged that the bill dealing with controlled drugs in one or two of its provisions was a violation of the bill of rights. I simply want to record that what we said about that bill in reference to denying the presumption of innocence principle applies to this clause and to the subclause immediately above. Although there is no point in trying to persuade an unwilling minister who will not agree with me, I simply want to put on the record the fact that here again is another violation of the bill of rights, and also a violation by the minister of section 3 of the bill of rights.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course the hon. member likes to put things on the record whether they are accurate or not. He is again putting a second inaccuracy on the record in what he has just said. In addition, he implies that he

was right in his assertion with respect to the earlier bill which he was not.
There is a clear distinction between his case there and his case here in that under this bill possession is an offence and in order to traffic in the drug, you obviously must have it in possession. Therefore it might be said that the one offence is included in the other.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I admit the statement of fact but I do not agree with the deduction.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On two grounds my friend is incorrect this time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
On clause 10-Search and seizure.
Harold Edward Winch: I have time to ask a question. As I said, I cannot be here tonight. Is the minister in a position to say a word on the point I raised last week? If a home is wrecked by officers going in to search and the person is completely innocent, if he is in legal possession of narcotics, what is the position? The home is wrecked. Has he any claim at all for assistance from the crown?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was asked a similar question in the committee the other day on my estimates. Our policy is where it is the federal police carrying out the enforcement of a federal statute if the premises of the innocent person are injured or damaged in the course of executing a warrant, and if the damage is minor we make restitution at once; if the damage should be major, then the matter is referred to the minister or to the deputy minister of justice for a submission to treasury board with regard to restitution. That is the policy with respect to an innocent person.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Harold Edward Winch: You talk about co-operation now.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Penitentiaries Act PENITENTIARIES

Edmund Davie Fulton: the second reading of Bill No. C-105, respecting penitentiaries.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it may be of interest to the house to know the first act of the parliament of Canada in relation to the subject matter of penitentiaries was passed in 1868. From time to time thereafter statutes were enacted by parliament in relation to this subject matter, but it was not until 1883 that all the relevant legislation was gathered together and enacted by parliament as an act to amend and consolidate the laws relating to penitentiaries.
Since 1883 the Penitentiary Act has been amended from time to time in one respect or another but at no time until now has parliament been presented with a bill that would revise completely the Penitentiary Act and put it in a form and give it a substance consistent with an enlightened approach to the problem of penitentiary operations. Evidence of this is to be found in the fact that, of the 82 sections in the present Penitentiary Act, more than 50 repeat almost word for word the corresponding section that was enacted by parliament in the statute of 1883 to which I have referred.
Hon. members will recall that the Fauteux committee, in its report of 1956 concerning the principles and procedures followed in the remission service of the Department of Justice, went into a considerable number of further fields than those encompassed by its terms of reference and embraced, indeed, the whole of the penitentiary system. They pointed out that there are certain features which, in the opinion of the committee, should be emphasized in the development of the Canadian correctional system. The Fauteux committee enumerated those features as follows:
(a)	a high degree of integration between all parts of the correctional system;
(b)	a well developed and extensive system of adult probation;
(e)	a concentration of effort on treatment by way of training, rather than the mere imposition of punishment; this is especially so in the case of special classes of offenders, particularly youthful offenders and persistent offenders;
(d)	specialization of institutions and specialization of methods of treatment, with a concentration of professional staff in the areas where it is most needed;
(e)	the development of small, open, minimum security institutions;
(f)	a planned policy of recruitment and training of professional staff; and
(g)	a willingness to make full-scale experiments in all phases of the correctional system.
Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that on Friday or Saturday of last week I outlined

Penitentiaries Act
to the committee of supply the progress made by the government in implementing the recommendations of the Fauteux committee report as expanded by the correctional planning committee which we appointed at the end of 1958. I indicated at that time that much progress had been made in modernizing the Canadian correctional system and that, in introducing the present bill, I would be introducing a measure to give form and substance and legislative authority, if you like, to the reorganization that has been going on in the penitentiaries branch as a result of the implementation of these plans.
The purpose of the present bill is to provide the legislative authority necessary in order to develop, in the Canadian federal correctional system, those features that relate particularly to the operation of the penitentiaries. The principal changes, therefore, under the new act that hon. members will find, in comparing it with the present Penitentiary Act, are as follows:
1.	It will permit a reorganization of the headquarters of the service in Ottawa along functional lines and will permit the establishment of regional penitentiary directors. This headquarters reorganization and regional development is essential if the headquarters of the service in Ottawa is not to be bogged down by a mass of details concerning the day to day operation of individual institutions.
2.	This bill will bring all officers and employees of the service under one central authority for the purposes of appointment, promotion and transfer. I outlined, during the consideration of the estimates, the new approach to this staff problem, and the new career opportunities which would open up. Prior to 1933 penitentiary officers were appointed under and were subject to the Civil Service Act. Since 1933 the headquarters staff in Ottawa has been appointed by the civil service commission; wardens, deputy wardens and other administrative or executive officers in the institutions have been appointed by the governor in council on the recommendation of the commissioner approved by the minister; and all other employees in penitentiaries, such as guards, trade instructors and other subordinate officers have been appointed by the commissioner upon the recommendation of the warden of the penitentiary concerned.
This is a very unsatisfactory arrangement because it does not permit transfers and promotions of officers between headquarters and the field. If we have a penitentiary officer who is, in our opinion, eminently suitable for a position at headquarters, it is necessary for him to enter a civil service competition and, of course, there is no assurance that he will win it. If he does win the competition,

he must then resign his position on the penitentiary staff in order to accept the new position under the Civil Service Act.
It is essential that all officers and employees should come under one jurisdiction and that the penitentiary service should be organized in a way that will permit, first:
The development of a career service, in which promotions are made on the basis of career planning and specialized training: for example, the headquarters staff should, as far as possible, have had experience in institutional work and the benefit of specialized correctional training.
Second, it is also necessary that the service should be organized in a way that will permit a code of discipline applicable to penitentiary service officers, especially in the field, comparable to that of the R.C.M. Police.
Third, it is necessary to provide for the speedy appointment of institutional staff members, having regard to the responsibility of the penitentiary service to see to the safe custody of inmates committed to the penitentiary by the courts. The method of appointment of employees established by this clause will give much greater flexibility to our system of career planning for officers.
The next feature that hon. members will observe in comparing this bill with the present act is that the bill authorizes the Minister of Justice, with the approval of the governor in council, to enter into an agreement with the government of any province for the confinement in federal institutions of persons who are sentenced under the criminal law to less than two years. In the absence of such authority persons sentenced to less than two years could not be detained in a federal institution.
The house will recall that in 1958 we had a dominion-provincial conference related to prospective changes being made in Canada's correctional system. This conference was called for the purpose of discussing with the responsible provincial ministers the problems that arise in connection with the implementation of the Fauteux committee's recommendations and other recommendations that we had developed as a result of our consideration of that report. At that time it was stated as a matter of policy by the federal government that we were prepared to accept the Fauteux committee's recommendation that the federal system should assume the responsibility for persons sentenced in Canada to terms of more than six months. I think that recommendation was "sentenced to terms of more than one year".
We outlined the problems that would confront us in accepting this proposal and the planning which would be necessary if we were to put it into effect. I refer to planning related to the improvement of our own federal

system in order to bring it to a point where it was of such a standard that we could say that it was as good as or better than any existing provincial system and that therefore it would be logical and proper for us to accept this additional responsibility; and also planning that would be necessary in order to enlarge the facilities of the federal system so that we might be physically able to take over that extra responsibility.
At that time I indicated to the provinces that if they agreed that this approach was correct, we would base our penitentiary planning on the first assumption and would press on with the necessary reorganization as rapidly as possible; but that in view of the tremendous physical problems with which we were confronted under the responsibility that we then had, it would in fact be several years before we could expect to be in a position to take over the increased responsibility consequent upon the inclusion in our institution of prisoners sentenced to the shorter term. I said, however, that although it might be a matter of years, as it will be, before we would be in a position to implement this recommendation in full, nevertheless, in individual cases where a particular province or particular provinces might find that they had a situation in which they were confronted with the necessity of substantial expenditures on their own part in order to modernize perhaps their own prison system and where they were reluctant to undertake this large scale development to the provincial prison system, we might be prepared to enter into individual arrangements with them under which we would assume, by virtue of agreements then to be entered into, the responsibility for prisoners who would otherwise have been part of the provincial system.
This would have two results. First, it would save the province concerned large outlays on their system which they might find it difficult to make and which might in part at least be wasted because, within a matter of a year or two, we would be taking over their system. Second, it would have the result that, by our assumption of this responsibility under these individual agreements, we would be in a position in which we would be able to plan any development of the prison system in that province so that it would conform with our over-all plan for the ultimate overall federal correctional system. I have reference now to this part of our understanding with the provinces, namely, our understanding that we will be prepared, in advance of the over-all acceptance of the additional responsibility, to enter into agreements with individual provinces to solve their problems.
I should emphasize that the purpose of this change to which I have just drawn attention
Penitentiaries Act
in the new bill is not designed to implement in full the understanding reached at the dominion-provincial conference of 1958, but rather is merely an interim measure designed to provide authority under which this basic change in the law can be made on an overall basis. Arrangements may nevertheless be made between the federal government and certain provincial governments whereby inmates who are now the responsibility of the provinces may be detained in federal institutions at provincial expense.
One major change to which I should draw attention will give effect in part to another understanding reached at the dominion-provincial conference of 1958. This was to the effect that no person under the age of 16 should be sentenced to a penal institution where adults are confined except where he is convicted of an offence mentioned in section 413 of the Criminal Code. This section includes such offences as murder, manslaughter, and rape. In order to give full effect to the recommendation to which I have referred, an amendment to the Criminal Code would be necessary. However, such an amendment to the Criminal Code could not reasonably be presented to this house for consideration until the necessary institutions, either federal or provincial, are available for the confinement of persons under the age of 21 years. What this bill does, however, is to provide that where facilities exist for the separate confinement of young offenders within a region of Canada no person who, being under the age of 16 years, and having been sentenced to penitentiary, shall within that region be confined in association with persons who are 21 years of age or more unless the commissioner otherwise directs in writing.
Then again, this bill changes the method whereby an inmate qualifies for remission of his sentence by reason of good conduct and industry while he is in the institution. The relevant factors to be considered in connection with remission of sentence and parole would seem to be the following. First, it should operate as an incentive to the inmate to apply himself towards his self-improvement while he is in the institution. Second, there should be a parole period of reasonable length for those who are granted parole so that they can obtain full benefit from it and be under supervision for a reasonable period. Third, there should be an incentive to the inmate to accept parole when it is offered to him rather than to serve out his sentence to completion. At the present time, by virtue of section 69 of the Penitentiary Act, an inmate earns remission at the rate of six days

Penitentiaries Act
a month until he has accumulated 72 days, whereupon he earns it at the rate of 10 days a month.
This bill is designed to achieve the purposes that should be served by a system of remission by dividing it into two types: statutory remission, amounting to one quarter of the sentence, which will be credited to the inmate as soon as he arrives in the institution and which will not only be subject to forfeiture for disciplinary offences committed while he is in custody but will also constitute part of his parole period, if he is granted parole; and second, earned remission, under which the inmate will be motivated to apply himself industriously to his work, in order that he may shorten his sentence by three days for each month in which he works industriously and provide an added incentive because, having earned this time off by reason of his industry, it will not be taken away from him by way of disciplinary procedure nor will it constitute part of his parole period.
Further, this bill also provides for the remission of forfeited statutory remission in proper cases. Some inmates have difficulty in adjusting to prison life at the beginning of their sentences and, as a result, have remission forfeited for disciplinary reasons. In time, however, many of these inmates become well adjusted and benefit from the prison program. It is desirable that, where such improvement has taken place, authority should exist for the return to the inmate of statutory remission that he may have lost early in the sentence by reason of his failure at that time to adjust to prison life.
Another feature of the bill is that it also authorizes the commissioner or the officer in charge of a penitentiary, in proper cases, to authorize an inmate to be absent from the institution, with or without escort as the case may be, for medical or humanitarian reasons or to assist in the inmate's rehabilitation. Under the law as it exists at the present time an inmate may not be absent from the institution, without escort, except under the authority of His Excellency the Governor General, acting on the advice of a minister of the crown. This is done as an exercise of the prerogative of mercy.
I am quite sure hon. members will appreciate that there are many, many situations in which it becomes cumbersome and administratively unwise to seek the authority of His Excellency the Governor General every time it appears desirable to allow an inmate, for a short period, to be absent from the penitentiary. Therefore it seems to us to be desirable that the authority to authorize such absences should to an appropriate degree be vested in the commissioner or the officer in

charge of the institution in order that it can be exercised as a part of the over-all training program that has been designed for the inmate in the institution.
The eighth major change is that the bill authorizes the establishment of a committee to be called the advisory committee on penitentiary industry in order that the penitentiary administration may have the benefit of the best advice available in connection with the development of industrial training programs designed to fit inmates for employment in industry and free society when they leave the institution.
Finally, the bill provides for the enactment of regulations by the governor in council for the organization, training, discipline, efficiency, administration and good government of the service; for the custody, treatment, training, employment and discipline of inmates and, generally, for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of this act. These are regulations which, under the present act, the commissioner himself could make subject only to the approval of the minister. The regulations so made will, of course, be subject to tabling in the House of Commons by virtue of the Regulations Act.
As will have been apparent to hon. members in the course of the discussion that attended the passage of the penitentiary service estimates last week, we have embarked upon a program of penitentiary development that is designed to provide for Canada, in the shortest possible time, a penal system that is at least the equal of any in the world. The science of correcting the offender is developing rapidly. This bill is designed to enable the Canadian penitentiary service to take full advantage of that science and to put it to full use on behalf of the people of Canada.
(Translation):


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition I wish to congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) for the statement he just made. That statement in fact covers most of the provisions of the Penitentiary Act.
As the minister said, the last enactment of the Penitentiary Act of 1939 re-enacted most of the clauses of the 1883 act.
After 78 years, and particularly after more than 20 years, needless to say, there is room for some changes and streamlining in the existing statute.
Where there were 82 clauses then, there are now 32 in the proposed legislation. I read the old statutes, and it seems to me that a great many of the provisions they contained could easily be incorporated in the regulations edicted by the governor in council and the commissioner of penitentiaries.

In my opinion, it is not necessary that the text of an act provide all the details of its application. I think the principle followed in this case by the minister and the government is a sound one.
Of course, as the minister said, in view of the conclusions of the Fauteux committee, it was imperative to redraft the Penitentiary Act, in order to define the framework and methods of application of the new correctional system, as the minister did indicate last Friday, when his estimates were under consideration.
At that time, I said there was no use prolonging the consideration of those estimates. I realize tonight that there is no use prolonging either the consideration of the Penitentiary Act.
Besides, the minister repeated tonight certain remarks he made last Friday.
I think everyone agrees on the principle of this bill because it involves no major change of policy.
Its purpose is to provide legislation for the commission of penitentiaries and especially for the inmates, to facilitate the latter's rehabilitation.
I feel that the main purpose of this bill is to promote the rehabilitation of inmates by means of methods of committal, remission, temporary absence and statutory remission.
Last Friday, when I asked him a question concerning the federal-provincial agreements regarding inmates, the minister made a rather thorough report of the situation resulting from the negotiations with the provinces.
Under section 16 of the bill, if an agreement is reached, the minister may, with the general or special approval of the governor in council, negotiate with the provinces so as to bring about a more complete reorganization of the penitentiaries.
Even inmates who are committed for six months or more should be included in that federal system.
In my opinion, this is a sound principle, because under the present legislation, even though an inmate spends three or six months, a year or two in jail, he is not compelled to work nor to take certain courses; in a word, he does not learn anything that might contribute to his rehabilitation. But when he is detained in a federal penitentiary, he may take courses and it is easier for him to rehabilitate himself.
Those in the law practice know that very often instead of sending a young man of 18, 19, 20, and even 23 or 24 to a district jail, the judge sends him to a penitentiary, simply
Penitentiaries Act
because he will be able to learn a trade there and thus prepare his rehabilitation within society.
To sum up, Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the house readily support the principle of this bill, even though we shall probably have some questions to raise when the measure will be considered in detail by the committee.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to add. The hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) has summed up very well the position which we on this side of the house, intend to take with regard to this bill.
The principle of the bill is very clear. It deals with a program of reform with regard to our penal system, but as we are now discussing clause 1-


An hon. Member:: On second reading.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -on second reading, I would like, before we get to the committee stage, to say this to the minister: We now have a complete rehabilitation program as regards our penitentiaries.
Now, I hope that, in carrying out this program, we will not fail to modernize obsolete institutions such as the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, for instance.
In that regard, may I point out to the minister that, not very long ago, some trouble broke out in that penitentiary. I was informed that one of the causes that was rising was precisely the building of the Leclerc institute on penitentiary grounds. We should therefore keep in mind that when proceeding with such drastic reforms, which enable us to erect buildings like the Leclerc institute, where inmates find living conditions entirely different from those that exist in an old building, those who remain in an old building are quite understandably filled with resentment.
I hope that thanks to this program of reform and rehabilitation for inmates, it will be possible to proceed with the modernization of our older institutions, because the carrying out of such a program will perhaps take several years. We will, therefore, I trust, see to it that all inmates, even those remaining in the older institutions, benefit from those reforms with a view to their readjustment to civilian life when they are discharged.
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Penitentiaries Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 5-Directors.
Gabriel Roberge: This clause provides that the minister may appoint officers of the service to be known as directors of division and regional directors. In the estimates we considered last Friday I see that provision is made for the commissioner of penitentiaries, a deputy commissioner, a first associate commissioner and several associate commissioners. Are these positions or grades to be abolished and replaced by others?


James Ross Fulton: Yes, there will be under the authority of the new act simply the commissioner, the deputy commissioner and directors of divisions such as treatment and training, or services and supplies. Then there will be regional directors.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Other officers and employees.
Gabriel Roberge: The minister explained on second reading that under this bill not all the employees of the service would be subject to the Civil Service Act. Although I agree that in dealing with establishments of this kind it is better to have specially trained people organized, perhaps, on the lines of the R.C.M.P., will the minister explain how this will work out, bearing in mind that many employees are now subject to the act and that those who come in later will not be subject to the act?


James Ross Fulton: Those personnel in the headquarters who continue in the service will be protected by clause 10(1) of this bill. With respect to their superannuation rights, and so on, they will be protected by the normal provision made applicable in such cases. I should inform the committee that there are,
I believe, only 110 officers out of a total of some 2,800 in the service who are subject to the Civil Service Act, so this is not a big change which we are making. We are taking only a small minority out from the Civil Service Act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 8-Tenure-Suspension.
Gabriel Roberge: In clause 8 subclause (1) it is provided that officers and employees of the service hold office during pleasure. Is there a reason why it is found necessary to make these positions tenable at pleasure instead of during good conduct?


James Ross Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is normal in what we call a disciplined force where absolute standards of discipline are [The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown).]
essential for the maintenance of the conduct and order of the penitentiaries themselves.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: On the same point, is there any contract of service with the employees who have been engaged?


James Ross Fulton: There is no contract of service in the ordinary sense. A man is appointed to a position at a certain salary authorized by treasury board and he will hold that position during pleasure, subject to being removed for any offence against the code of discipline and subject to promotion if he shows himself qualified for promotion.


Murdo William Martin: I should like to ask a question on the same lines with regard to all three subclauses. Is there any machinery of any kind or any agreed procedure for rectifying grievances felt by the employees? This seems to me to be a most autocratic way of dealing with the service. Those engaged in it are to hold office at pleasure. The commissioner may suspend them and so may the directors. Is there any procedure whereby an employee can appeal against such a decision if he feels he has been unjustly dealt with?


James Ross Fulton: Most of the procedures in this matter will be handled by regulations. The regulations of the penitentiary service will follow very closely the regulations under the new Civil Service Act. There will not be very much difference in that respect. Perhaps I should point out that paragraph 2 of clause 8 is virtually the same as the first part of section 30 of the present act, and paragraph 3 is the same as the second part of section 30 of the present act.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Suppose that an employee is informed verbally by the commissioner that his services are no longer required. Is there a board to which he can appeal in the event he feels he is being unjustly treated?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the regulations will provide for that. At the present time the regulations provide that an employee may bring grievances to the commissioner. Under the regulations of the new act which will be similar in nature, there will also be provision for the regular procedures of airing grievances on the part of employees. That is not going to be unregulated at all. The conduct in respect of employees and their rights to conditions of service will be clearly laid out by regulations.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, if my memory serves me correctly, when we studied the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act there was machinery provided to grant the right of appeal to members of that force. There were some changes made by the committee

at that time with regard to the delay of appeals. In view of the fact that officers and employees of the penitentiary service are more or less a type of police officer except that they are required to assist in the rehabilitation and teaching of inmates, which will require special training, in the case of a suspension or removal, why is there no provision in this act for the right of appeal?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friend remembers the discussion in respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, he will recall, by virtue of the act, the powers of the commissioner with respect to disciplining members of that force are considerably greater than the powers of the commissioner of penitentiaries in respect to disciplining members of the penitentiaries service. The commissioner of the R.C.M. Police has the disciplinary authority to reduce a member in rank and/or to impose penalties, financial and otherwise. There are no such regulations giving that power to the commissioner of penitentiaries. Because of the rather overriding powers of the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. it was felt necessary to write certain safeguards of procedure into the act regarding the method of dealing with these matters. That situation is not the same with regard to the penitentiaries service and, therefore, it was felt appropriate to leave the same questions to be covered by the regulations as will be the case under the Civil Service Act.


Gabriel Roberge: In this case there is power to reduce pay, impose sentence or to dismiss an employee. I suggest it is worse to be dismissed than to lose pay for a certain period.


Edmund Davie Fulton: All I can say to the hon. member is that the provisions herein contained will be closely parallel to whatever provision is provided under the regulations of the Civil Service Act. The probability is that there will be a right of appeal established by those regulations.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the last answer given by the minister does not satisfy me. For instance, if an employee at Halifax is reported by the superior there, that report is sent to the commissioner who will decide what to do. If the employee wishes to appeal, the commissioner will simply tell him there is no provision in the act authorizing an appeal.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the matter is covered by the regulations, that answer will not be open to the commissioner.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, may I say in respect of this clause that there will be two categories of employees in the penitentiary service. We will have the category of
Penitentiaries Act
employees engaged after the passing of this act, and the category of employees already engaged in penitentiary service who will be coming under the civil service commission. All hon. members realize that under the civil service commission there are safeguards protecting the employee in case of dismissal. I suggest it is not a sound principle that we should have two categories of employees governed by two different sets of regulations.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Those individuals who are presently in headquarters staff will continue, while they are occupying their present positions, to hold those positions under the Civil Service Act by virtue of section 10. When they will be promoted or transferred, the promotion or transfer will be made in accordance with the provisions of this act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9-Authority where commissioner and deputy commissioner absent.
Louis Fortin: Mr. Chairman, perhaps my question should have been asked when we were dealing with clause 5, but as clause 9 also deals with the deputy commissioner, I should like to ask the minister whether he would give consideration to the appointment of a French speaking Canadian as either a commissioner or a deputy commissioner?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, at this moment, two of the very senior personnel at headquarters are French speaking officers. I refer to one of the deputy commissioners who will, under the new act, become the director of medical services, and another who will be the director of staff training. Both those very senior appointments will be French Canadian.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 16-Agreement.
John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Chairman; I am sorry to hold up the proceedings, but I wonder whether the minister could clarify this clause and its application to the New Westminster penitentiary and the Oakalla prison farm. With the adoption of the legislation in respect of treatment of narcotic addicts approximately one third of the inmates of the New Westminster penitentiary will be moved to the new centre. In the meantime, pending agreement with the provinces, the objective of this clause is to have the addicts transferred to New Westminster from the Oakalla prison farm, and then to the new treatment centres. I wondered whether there is an agreement with the province of British Columbia in this regard and, if so, is there any indication of the eventual abandonment of the Oakalla prison farm which is in the centre of residential Burnaby?

Penitentiaries Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the narcotic drug addict who is sentenced to Oakalla prison farm at the present time would not be transferred automatically to the new drug treatment centres when it commences operations, only persons sentenced in the future. This clause is designed, as I said on second reading, to enable us to enter into individual agreements with certain provinces to provide for the assumption by us of responsibility for the custody of inmates who would otherwise be a provincial responsibility.
In advance of that time when we are able to bring about an over-all change and assume that responsibility recommended by the Fauteux committee, there are certain provinces, primarily the maritime provinces, which feel very desirous of seeing changes, shall I say, reforms, improvements, made in their present system because they, being humanitarian and progressive minded persons in charge there, recognize that perhaps there is left something to be desired in the present jail system. They recognize, however, that it would involve them in very heavy expense to bring their present system up to the standard that they themselves would like to see. Since therefore we have agreed with them in principle that just as soon as we can do it we shall take over the responsibility for a large number of their prisoners, they have said to us, "Will you help us to avoid the necessity of this substantial expenditure on facilities which when you do assume that responsibility we shall not require?" We have said, "Yes, in your case what we would be prepared to do is enter into an individual agreement, even in anticipation of the time when we can enter into the same agreement or arrangements all across Canada, to relieve you of the responsibility for at least some of your prisoners and take that responsibility ourselves so that you will not be faced with the responsibility of this very heavy and unrewarding capital expenditure." What we shall do under the authority of this clause we shall do in order to enter into such agreements to meet individual cases, where we will assume the responsibility for the custody and care of those prisoners; but because we are not yet doing it with all provinces we will require during the period to have a per capita payment from the provinces with which we enter into agreements. When we have legislation, as I expect we shall, under which we are responsible for the custody of such prisoners, then, of course, the necessity for a per capita payment from the provinces will cease.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I was trying to get one
point clarified by the minister. Perhaps it is

not within his knowledge, or it may be unfair to ask him this question at this particular time. I am quite concerned about the situation at Oakalla prison farm which is a provincial institution located in central Burnaby and extremely close to the Vancouver area. It is surrounded by residences. There is a continuing problem, despite the very close supervision, of occasional outbreaks by inmates of that prison. I wonder whether it is within the minister's knowledge if any agreement is being contemplated with the province of British Columbia at the present time to use this legislation in fact to bring about an emptying or a movement of Oakalla prison farm? I ask the question because the minister has indicated that eventually the addicts in New Westminster penitentiary, who I understand are approximately one quarter of the population, will be moved to the new treatment centres and the addicts who are in Oakalla will subsequently be moved. I thought perhaps the space in the penitentiary might be utilized temporarily by those who are occupying Oakalla at the present time with a view to an eventual abandonment of the institution. I was wondering whether that was within the minister's knowledge at this time?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I would not be able to forecast any such developments. The arrangements to be made with British Columbia will of course depend, at the time when we can assume this over-all responsibility, on whether or not the facilities that British Columbia operates would be considered to be satisfactory to be taken over by us and whether British Columbia would be prepared to turn them over to us because they will have a residual responsibility for some prisoners under provincial jurisdiction. Whether they will want to turn over Oakalla prison farm to us I do not know, nor am I able to say at the present time whether in fact British Columbia will empty out Oakalla under the situation contemplated by the hon. member for Burn-aby-Richmond. I suppose it is true that when we get the new drug treatment centre going out there we might have a transfer of a considerable number of our present inmates from the penitentiary in New Westminster. Then if this space were vacant and we entered into an agreement with all the provinces or, rather, passed legislation under which we assumed responsibility for large numbers of prisoners who are now the responsibility of the provinces, it is possible that we might transfer inmates from Oakalla to New Westminster or take those inmates now at Oakalla and transfer them to New Westminster; but this is quite some time in the future and I am unable to say whether or not that will actually happen.

We are not too happy with Westminster penitentiary. It is a very old fortress-like prison and we may well be looking around for new institutions ourselves. I am not able to say what our building program will be at that time, or how quickly we can take them over and what the move will be.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 21-Not to associate with adults.
Murdo William Martin: I do not know whether this is a fair question to ask the minister; possibly he can decide whether or not it is. I am thinking of a particular case with which the minister is familiar. I am wondering whether this particular clause would cover a situation of that kind?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am very sorry; I did not quite catch the hon. member's question.


Murdo William Martin: Clause 21 (2) has
to do with inmates being transferred from federal jurisdiction to provincial jurisdiction. I was thinking of the case to which 1 drew the minister's attention not too long ago. I was wondering whether this particular clause would cover a situation of that kind?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think it would, Mr. Chairman, because if I recall the case correctly the lad in question was sentenced under the Juvenile Delinquents Act and from there he goes to an institution for juvenile delinquents. The provision in clause 21 is intended to cover the case of a person under the age of 16 years who may be sentenced under the provisions of the Criminal Code and would therefore be a federal responsibility. Here we are providing that generally speaking he shall not be confined to an institution with persons over the age of 21 years.
The position with regard to our right to transfer from provincial to federal institutions remains as I outlined it to my hon. friend in the letter which I wrote to him about the case.


Murdo William Martin: I was wondering about subclause (3) which reads:
Where, in any region of Canada, a person under the age of 16 years is confined in an institution operated by the government of a province for the custody and training of persons under the age of 21 years and the warden, superintendent or other officer in charge of that institution is of the opinion that the person is unsuitable for training in that institution, he may, by warrant, approved in writing by the attorney general or other provincial minister of the crown, authorize the transfer of that person to any institution operated by the government of Canada within the region for the separate confinement of young offenders.
Penitentiaries Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is true that if the attorney general of the province approved, the inmates might be transferred to a federal institution; but the reason why I said this did not cover the case my hon. friend had in mind is my recollection of that case is that I was asked if I could arrange for the transfer from one provincial institution to another provincial institution. I think the answer is that I have no authority over the provincial institution and I could not arrange that. It was a matter to be arranged between the attorneys general of the two province's. It is true that clause 21 (3) provides that there may be a transfer from a provincial institution to an appropriate federal institution, but that was not the request that was made in this particular case.


Murdo William Martin: However, if such a transfer had been arranged, then subclause 1 would have applied. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this clause provides machinery that was not available before in relation to cases of this kind, where a transfer might be considered to be best for the party concerned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The difficulty is that the boy in question is confined under a provincial warrant of committal which runs only in the province within which that warrant was issued. We could not receive him into a federal institution, and then transfer him into another province, because the warrant of committal would not run in that province We could receive him in a federal institution under subclause 3, and keep him there, even though it might be in a different province. However, we could not then transfer him into a provincial institution in a different province.


Murdo William Martin: Having once been transferred under subclause 3 into a federal institution, then would not subclause 1 apply, which relates to facilities in federal institutions for young offenders?


James Ross Fulton: If we had an appropriate institution we could transfer him under subclause 1 to another federal institution, that is quite true. However, my hon. friend will see that the facilities referred to in clause 21(1) are federal facilities; that is inherent in the scheme of the act. All that are referred to here, therefore, are federal institutions.
As I explained, what was requested in the case under discussion now was that I might endeavour to arrange for a transfer from one institution in one province to an institution in another province. When somebody is committed to an institution under a warrant of committal in the first province, there is no way in which I can do that. It might be possible to have it done by agreement between

Penitentiaries Act
the attorneys general of the respective provinces. I cannot order it done, nor do I have any jurisdiction under which I could authorize it.


Murdo William Martin: In so far as this particular case about which we have spoken is concerned, or one similar to it, under subclause 3 of clause 21, there could be a transfer to federal jurisdiction. Having accomplished this transfer, then could not the balance of the transfer be made under subclause 2 by agreement between the federal authorities and another provincial government?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the hon. member will look at subclause 2, he will see that it refers to a situation where, in any region of Canada, a person under the age of 16 years is sentenced or committed to a penitentiary and, within that region, an institution is operated by the government of a province for the custody and training of any person under the age of 21 years, then, the commissioner may, by a warrant, authorize the transfer of that person to such institution and that person shall be dealt with accordingly. Here, you have the case of a person committed under the Criminal Code and, by virtue of the statute, under our authority. Then we may provide here, as we do, that we can transfer that person to a provincial institution within that region, but it is within that region.
The difficulty in the case to which my hon. friend refers is this: There would be a warrant of committal under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, and that warrant is authority only within that province. I do not see how we could take a person into custody, then transfer him into some other province where that warrant of committal does not run. We have no control over the committal or the institution to which that person has been committed. I believe that in order to cover the situation there would have to be an amendment to the Juvenile Delinquents Act to provide that the attorneys general of the provinces could make an arrangement for the transfer from an institution in one province to an institution in another.


Mr. Lambert:: There is one question I should like to ask the minister. It deals not so much with young offenders under the age of 16 but with youthful offenders between the ages of 16 and 21. There is no federal institution in the province of Alberta, but there is a youthful offenders' institution at Bowden. I wonder whether there is any provision here for the transfer of a person beyond the age of 16, but who had been committed to a federal penitentiary-say he was 17 or 18-to a provincial institution such as the one at Bowden?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answer, Mr. Chairman, would be no.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 22-One quarter remission.
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: This clause deals with remission for inmates sentenced to fixed terms. What about those who have been sentenced to indefinite terms? They are not covered here. I am referring to habitual criminals.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: While the minister is considering his answer, perhaps he could at the same time deal with the situation with regard to life imprisonment. I believe that formerly that was considered to be 20 years, and there was a review after 10 years. We have been dealing with amendments to the Criminal Code and the narcotic act, both of which make provision for sentences of life imprisonment. I wonder if the minister could indicate what factors are taken into consideration, the minimum period and the normal period of a sentence of life imprisonment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With regard to the first question about indeterminate sentences may I say this. There can be no earned remission as provided by this statute. The case will be reviewed every year. At the present time it is every three years. I am sorry; I should have said that at the present time it is not less than every three years. We propose to change this under the new Criminal Code amendment to every year in the case of an indeterminate sentence to see whether the person is in fact qualified for release on parole; but even if released on parole, he is released for the balance of his life because his sentence is indeterminate.
I should also say that the commissioner advises me that it has been decided that the parole board with the penitentiaries commission will not fictitiously make entries but will make entries crediting this person with earned remission as though he were there for a determinate sentence so that the parole board, when it comes to assess his conduct and his progress, will have something to look at in assessing what would have been credited to him had he been there for a determinate period but it will have no value other than evidenciary value to the parole board to show what kind of inmate he is.
With regard to life sentences, there again the sentence is for life and again the point or the time at which he will be paroled will be in the determination of the parole board. They have passed regulations under which they have provided that where the sentence of life is the result of a commuted death sentence, then they will not consider the man

as being eligible for parole before a minimum of ten years; but where the life sentence is for other offences they have wider discretion to determine at what point the man should be considered from the point of view of eligibility for parole which is in the discretion of the parole board; and again, if paroled he is still subject to a term of life imprisonment and therefore he is subject to supervision by the parole board for the rest of his life.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Do prisoners initiate the study as to when the person is likely to be paroled or does the commissioner do that or is it automatic?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The inmate may apply for it under the Parole Act or the penitentiary officials may make a report bringing him to the attention of the parole board.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 28 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 29-Regulations.
Ernest James Broome: I should like to say a few words on this clause. It has to do with the regulations with regard to the operation of the penitentiaries. I should like to call to the minister's attention the fact that some of the regulations have been, in my opinion, unduly restrictive. Some of them have been changed in the last year. I refer to a prisoner having one sheet of paper on which to write a letter. If a prisoner wanted to have more than one sheet, he was not allowed to have it. It is not too long ago that he was limited to one sheet. He was also limited to the number of letters that he could send out. Also with regard to visitations there was a restriction. For instance, a male prisoner was supposed to be visited by members of his family. I talked to the warden at the British Columbia penitentiary who told me that the prisoners said this: "Having regard to the life I have lived, how can I have anything in the way of decent relations with the people on the outside?" He has not any relatives who can come and visit him, so the women he had known when he was outside come in as aunts or relatives and so on.
I think it is not in the best interests of the service or of the prisoners to be unduly restrictive with regard to visitations or with regard to such small items as letter writing. However, these things bulk large in the views of the prisoners. I know that the regulations have been changed a bit. However, I do not know how far they have gone along the line of enlightened penology. They certainly were restrictive not too long ago.
At the same time I should like to say that I have visited, as I say, the British Columbia penitentiary and I have talked 90205-6-393
Penitentiaries Act
to the wardens. There have been two wardens there. I have also talked to other people in the penitentiary service. I think the minister has not really been given full credit for the tremendous job he has done in visiting all the penitentiaries across Canada and for the interest he has taken in penal reform. This interest of the minister is certainly appreciated by the staff. It has done much to bring about better conditions within the penitentiaries system. However, I would say this. Let us not have restrictions and regulations just for the sake of having them. Where reasonable, shall I say, advantages or reasonable conditions can be brought about, I think this should be done. I think the previous regulations in many ways have been unduly restrictive and in fact have been punitive without there being any reason for their being punitive.


James Ross Fulton: I think I must send the hon. member some copies of my speeches because I have taken exactly the same point of view as he has taken in the remarks I have made from time to time. I am sure he will be glad to know that those in the service, and myself as minister, have been discussing problems of this sort and how the regulations should be changed and brought in line with the new concept of correction and rehabilitation. This problem and the views of the senior personnel on it were discussed at a warden's conference at the staff college in Kingston last November and, as a result of the exchange of views which took place there, a change was made in the regulations effective last November. The visiting regulations have been substantially relaxed as have the regulations in regard to the writing of letters. An inmate may now write as many letters as he wishes to write subject only to one restriction, namely the warden's decision as to whether it is in his interests and in the interests of his rehabilitation that he write to an individual. But subject to that restriction on the individual basis of the desirability of his correspondence he may write to others with whom it is desirable for him to correspond as often as he likes, except that we will pay for only one letter a week. We have also increased the amount of money he can earn in prison so that the problem of writing letters and increased postage should not be great.
With regard to visiting, the restrictions have been lifted to the maximum extent possible. Indeed, it might be almost correct to say that the only restriction is the restriction imposed by the physical accommodation available. In our old maximum security institutions which are over-crowded, we just

Farm Credit Act
do not have the space to permit visits without rationing the number of visits that an inmate may receive. It is not that we think it is bad for him. It is simply that in order that we may allow everybody to be visited we have to ration the number each may have. In our new institutions and minimum security institutions such as Williams Head there are, I think I can say without exaggerating, virtually unlimited rights of visiting on the part of inmates.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 32 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


William Moore Benidickson: By leave.


Edmund Davie Fulton: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



FARM CREDIT ACT


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Credit Act to increase the capital of the farm credit corporation from $8 million to $12 million.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, on this resolution-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: I would advise the hon. member that there is no debate on this motion.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.


Gordon Campbell Chown: House in committee of the whole on a certain proposed resolution to amend the Farm Credit Act. Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Pickersgill:: The minister is filibustering his own resolution.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -I have the choice of speaking at some length on second reading or on the resolution. In view of the fact that the resolution calls for the expenditure of public money I think the reasons why

we are asking the House of Commons to amend the section of the act that we have before us should be advanced at this time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Farm Credit Act by increasing the authorized capital of the farm credit corporation from $8 million to $12 million. Under the provision of section 13 of this act, this will have the effect of increasing by $100 million the amount which the corporation may borrow from the Minister of Finance. I believe the reasons behind this proposed increase are of sufficient general interest to justify some comment at this stage.
It will be recalled that when the Farm Credit Act was being debated in committee on July 13, 1959, as reported at page 5948 of Hansard, my predecessor found it necessary, in order to refute criticism that the proposed act did not meet the expressed needs of the Canadian agricultural community, to place on record the comment of a leading official of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, to the effect that the new act embodied practically everything which the federation had proposed.
In view of some of the comments made during that debate there seemed then to be, and there may still exist, some question in some quarters whether the expectations of the government and of the Canadian farmers were going to be justified when the Farm Credit Act became operative. I believe that the bill now before us, if examined in the light of its real implications, will reveal whether those expectations have been realized. To understand those implications it is necessary to refer very briefly to the intent of the Farm Credit Act as conceived by the government at the time of its introduction in this house, and to the record of lending operations that followed its implementation.
It will be recalled that the legislation of 1959 had the effect of increasing the amount and broadening the basis of the security requirements of long term mortgage loans to Canadian farmers. The express object was:
-to assist Canadian agriculture to voluntarily reorganize itself into economic family farm units, each of sufficient size to be capable, under the management of the owner, of producing sufficient income to pay operating and maintenance costs, provide a good standard of living, and to repay the loan necessary to set up such a unit within an appropriate period.
While there was general agreement that increased credit facilities were required, there were many who questioned the adequacy of the government's proposals and their reception by the farming community. I would like to reassure these critics by outlining very briefly the circumstances which make the proposed amendment necessary.

It will be conceded that an objective appraisal of the reaction of the farming public to the new Farm Credit Act can be made only by examining the record of lending activity since the establishment of the farm credit corporation and comparing it to the record under the previous legislation. I may say at the outset that it is this record which necessitates the amendment we now have under consideration.
The Canadian farm loan board in 1929, the first year of its operations, loaned $2,630,377 to 1,270 farmers. During the first decade its annual average lending	amounted	to$3,862,725 and the average number of borrowers was 1,889. During the second decade the average annual lending dropped to $2,669,675 and the average number of borrowers was 1,196. In the third and final decade of its operations it averaged $10,358,134 in loans to an average of 2,378 farmers each year. The total amount of all its outstanding loans at the end of its last full year of operations	amounted	to


William Moore Benidickson: Does that mean that amount was on the books at that time?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, that was the total amount of all its outstanding loans. The Farm Credit Act came into force in the fall of 1959 and on March 31 this year the farm credit corporation concluded its first full fiscal year of lending activity. During that year it approved 5,597 loans in the amount of $60,704,050. As of March 31, 1961, the total of its outstanding investment in farm loans had increased to $162,534,854.
While it is true that we are here comparing the long term averages with a rather brief period under the new legislation, it should be borne in mind that the trend in lending volume under the new farm credit corporation has been continuously upwards and may reach $75 million during the current season. These figures in themselves are conclusive evidence of the enthusiasm with which this legislation was greeted by the Canadian farmer, but they tell only part of the story.
The government's object was to try to ensure that the credit extended to farmers would not only allow them to adjust their operations and their living standards to modern conditions, but would also be within their capacity to repay. Our supporting evidence here is their repayment record. As at March 31, 1960, 90.9. per cent of all mortgage loans were in good standing. By March 31, 1961, this percentage had risen to 92,5 per cent despite the increase in the average amount of the individual loan and the correspondingly heavier repayment obligation.
90205-6-393J
Farm Credit Act
This speaks well of the care exercised by the farm credit corporation in ensuring that its loans are sound and constructive and in line with the intent of the act, and it illustrates the soundness of the new and intensive program of pre-loan counselling service which its staff extends to all loan applicants.
The soundness of the new legislation and of the farmers' reaction to it is also confirmed by an analysis of the purposes for which loans are made. For example, in 195657 only 33.6 per cent was used to purchase land and effect improvements to land; in 1960-61 the proportion used for these purposes was 59.9 per cent, almost double. This means more emphasis on increased income. In 1956-57 54.1 per cent was used to pay existing land debts and other debts; in 196061 the percentage used for this purpose was only 34.7 per cent.
These figures taken together represent and confirm the government's expectation that the Canadian farmer, given access to adequate and well-administered credit, could be depended upon to put it to good and productive use, in line with the state objective of the legislation-"The progressive reorganization of agriculture into economic family farm units."
I should perhaps interject a word at this point about the cost of administering these improved services to farmers. The net administrative cost to the corporation, expressed as a percentage of the outstanding loan investment, amounted to .865 per cent during the fiscal year just ended, down from an average of 1.06 per cent during the previous four years.
The figures I quoted a moment ago illustrate the farmer's investment of this new long term credit in the creative and productive development of the farming unit. This does not mean that his short and intermediate term credit needs have been neglected. In the year ended December 31, 1960, he also took advantage of government guaranteed bank credit under the Farm Improvement Loans Act to the extent of $79,942,352 to purchase agricultural implements; $10,064,430 for farm buildings; $9,624,919 to purchase livestock; and $2,224,045 for other purposes related to the development of his farming enterprise, for a total of $101,855,746 up from a total of just over $69 million in 1957, $70 million in 1956, $69 million in 1957 and $62 million in 1959.
Working together and complementing each other, these two sources-each performing a separate function and serving a different need-make adequate credit available to establish an economic farm unit for every farmer who is able to establish that he has a sound proposition, the necessary managerial

Farm Credit Act
ability, credit-worthiness and the minimum financial resources required. If he has $9,000 in cash or in land, stock and equipment and the other required qualifications, he can borrow up to $27,500 from these two sources, giving him a working capital of $36,500. Should he be a young and beginner farmer- where the early repayment of a farm improvement loan, along with an F.C.C. loan, would be more than he could reasonably handle-he may borrow the whole $27,500 as a "package-deal" loan under Part III of the Farm Credit Act, in which case he will actually pay interest only on his land debt while repaying the part of the debt secured by his stock and equipment. Under this latter arrangement he also has, during the early years of his enterprise, the advantage of a supervision service provided by the corporation. By the use of one or both of these pieces of legislation, full-time farmers who have acquired 25 per cent of the capital required for the setting up of an economic family farm unit can now be adequately serviced. Of these, the only applicant likely to be turned down is one who cannot establish to the satisfaction of the corporation, by his past record and by a sound operating plan, that he will be able to pay operating, maintenance and living costs and at the same time repay the loan requested, or one who already has an adequate economic unit or sufficient capital of his own to complete or acquire such a unit.
The Canadian farmer's response to these two pieces of credit legislation has been extremely gratifying to this government, illustrating as it does not only the soundness of its over-all agricultural policy, but justifying the confidence it has continued to place in the basic soundness of the agricultural industry itself. Wherever the natural conditions are such as to make commercial agriculture feasible and profitable under modem conditions, our farmers have shown us, I think, that they require only a little encouragement and co-operation from the government in order to work out their own salvation. Their response to the farm credit legislation, reflected in the expanding lending operations of the farm credit corporation and of the banks under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, speaks for itself.
To recapitulate the situation with respect to the capital requirements of the corporation: the lending authority of the Minister of Finance, in so far as the farm credit corporation is concerned, is limited by the corporation's present capital to a maximum of $200 million. The corporation to date has on loan from the Minister of Finance a total of $151,653,944, leaving only $48,346,056 to finance new farm loans for the current season. The greater part of this balance is

already encumbered by loans in process, and it is anticipated that loan demand during the current fiscal year may reach $75 million. The proposed amendment would provide an additional $100 million to meet these credit needs.


William Moore Benidickson: I had intended, and I think most people on this side of the chamber had intended, to be very brief on the resolution stage, but we usually find that the Minister of Agriculture has something to sell and a great deal to say.
I am sure he has found since he has been in the Department of Agriculture that those who are employed in that department in the most useful way are engaged in trying to grow ten plants where one was formerly grown. But encouraged by the great number of public relations officers who have been added to the staff of the ministry of late, I am sure that the minister is determined always to use ten words where one word was used before. Thus some reply is necessary, I think, even with respect to legislation which normally would have the swift approval of this committee.
If hon. members would look at the resolution they will find it seems to be a very simple one. Some of us might think it involves only $4 million extra capital. It does not mean that, because while it says that the capital of the farm credit corporation is to be allowed to increase from $8 million to $12 million we must recollect, if we have not looked at the statute recently, that there is a multiplication factor here involving an increase of 25 times the capital of the corporation which means that what we are really doing in connection with this simple resolution is saying that the amount which will be available for lending will be increased, not by $4 million but by 25 times $4 million, which is $100 million.
As I have indicated, I had intended, had the minister not been somewhat verbose, to say with some alacrity that we have very little quarrel with that proposal. However, I now feel that while the resolution, on the face of it, appears to be simple it does involve an examination of the entire operation of the farm credit corporation. Let me say, first of all, that in so far as the financial operations of this corporation are concerned we are more than a year out of date. The last financial report available to us, as far as I know, is the public document provided by the corporation to parliament covering its first year of operation, under a new system, for the year ending March 31, 1960. I therefore suggest to the minister, inasmuch as under the new act we are for the first time embarking upon an element of subsidy and

bonuses in connection with farm loans, that he should provide to parliament when he speaks on the introduction of the bill and on second reading, an up to date statement concerning the salient factors of these operations covering the period between March 13, 1960 and March 31, 1961.
1 thank the minister for the figures he has given us today in connection with gross lending and matters of that kind. The minister very properly took pride in connection with the very obvious growth in gross lending and I might say that we too are pleased to see this. On the other hand I thought the minister was not as objective as he might have been in this case because, if he will look at the first reports presented by this government in the year ending March 31, 1959 in respect to farm loans, he will find figures at page 4 indicating that it was not unusual to have prominent growth, year by year, in the dollar value of farm loan lendings either under the former legislation or under this new act.
To illustrate that fact, I should like to point out that from 1956 to 1957 farm loans increased from $8.2 million to $13.2 million, and from 1957 to 1958 they increased from $13.2 million to $19.3 million, and so on over the years. There has been a general increase which I believe has been comparable to the growth in the gross national product as well as to the dollar growth of our industries across Canada during the same period. There has been, to use the phrase of the minister, a continuously upward increase in loans that have been provided to farmers under the former statute and under the present one.
I have no desire to detract at all from the good growth which has developed under the statute introduced in 1959. However, inasmuch as the minister chose, when it was known to him that this legislation could go through very rapidly, to point to certain features of improvement that were provided in 1959, I felt obliged to inform this committee that this farm loan legislation was introduced in 1929, and that there never was anything but an advance in so far as the maximum amount of loan is concerned except during that period of Conservative administration from 1930 to 1935.
In 1929 when the original legislation was provided, the maximum loan was $10,000. That maximum was reduced in 1934, under the Bennett administration, to $7,500, and was further reduced in 1935 to $6,000. Fortunately the trend ever since, either under one administration or the other, has been upward. I should not have mentioned these matters had it not been for the rather lengthy outline given by the minister.
Farm Credit Act
Many of the normal queries that have concerned members of parliament have fortunately been answered before we came to this stage of the debate through the publication of a most useful report put out by the farm credit corporation within the last month under the title "Farm Credit Corporation Lending Policy". I should like to compliment the minister and the administration, as well as the chairman of that corporation, in respect of this very useful publication.
Most of the correspondence I have received has involved matters which are referred to in this particular publication which, as I say, was released last month, and I commend it to the attention of all hon. members. As members of parliament, we are still laymen in this field, receiving inquiries which we find we are not able to answer. I think the chief reason is that the new application form almost requires the services of a Philadelphia lawyer to understand. To that suggestion perhaps the present administration will reply that since the new act came into force, and in view of the greatly enlarged amount of money which has to be paid by an applicant before his application will receive attention, in consequence, it is hoped that because his application fee is ten times greater than it was before he will receive from the officers of the crown more personal assistance in completing this very involved application form.
Another criticism which I regard as most important, in a secondary sense, is that criticism with respect to something which existed before, and which used to exercise members of the Conservative party when in opposition, namely, a reference to the appraisal which apparently must be based on land value, and not necessarily on income coming to the farmer from his operation.


Mr. Brunsden:: Land productive value.


William Moore Benidickson: I received a letter from a woman who is in partnership with her husband in the operation of a not large chicken farm in my riding. She found that it was hopeless to apply for this farm loan, even after the amendment of 1959 because, while their income has not been bad, and while their business record has been splendid, to use her words "The main emphasis is on the land value". She therefore felt that, although in the northern Ontario area this enterprise might be regarded as most successful, the farm credit corporation loan was not available to them, and eventually they had to seek private funds for the expansion of their rather outstanding poultry endeavour. Their poultry operation is so spectacular that even chain stores in Winnipeg have found that buyers there look for the Davidson poultry label as an indication of quality. This

Farm Credit Act
operation is a relatively small operation but, in spite of that, the quality of their product is noted throughout that locale, and as far away as Winnipeg.
In spite of that fact, and apparently because of the continued appraisal system based on land productive value, those people were disqualified from obtaining assistance which would have enabled them to expand. I do not wish to say anything more at this stage of the debate.


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question. Could he tell us the area of this poultry enterprise in acreage?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I should have to look at my correspondence in order to do that. I confess I have not read it within the last few days. At the time I received it I considered it in the usual way, without putting any pressure upon the corporation, but knowing that the individuals are perhaps the most progressive in my area of northern Ontario, I did commend their comments to the farm credit corporation. The application was rejected and they had to go to non-government sources for a loan. And yet these are not the type of people that we sometimes hear about when we debate agricultural matters in this house. We talk about the integrated farmer, the large poultry operation and so on. This is not that at all; it is a family operation. The application proved to be fruitless even under the amendments provided in 1959.
Before I resume my seat there is some other information I should like to get from the minister, either now or on second reading of the bill. It is a parallel situation with respect to farm lending between the federal government and the provincial government. Only this morning I am sure that other members read, as I did, a review of the legislative program of the province of Quebec. It was stated that in Quebec the farm credit legislation had been liberalized or enlarged during the past session. My recollection is that a very substantial subsidized farm loan program has existed in the province of Quebec for a great number of years. Farm credit was so largely subsidized that few f armers would apply either to the farm credit corporation or to the farm loan board which both come under federal jurisdiction, if it was possible for them to get consideration under the former Quebec legislation. When the minister makes his report, either now or on second reading of the bill, I should like him to comment on the effect, if any, of this legislation, and particularly part II of it, on the junior farmer loan program of the province of Ontario.

I think it was in 1958 that the province of Manitoba introduced new legislation which offered loans to farmers. To what extent is there duplication? To what extent is an effort being made to co-ordinate our programs? In the third place, to what extent is any advance in the federal sphere reducing or eliminating the usefulness and efficacy of loans in the provinces to which I have referred?
Perhaps there are other provinces which have similar farm loan programs. I think it would be useful to have this information because, as I said at the beginning, while this looks like a simple amendment to the act, it does involve all the principles of the act which was introduced in 1959. Because of the multiplication factor, we are really dealing with $100 million, not the difference between $12 million and $8 million, which is referred to in the resolution.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, if one looks at the statistics of the report of the minister with a jaundiced eye one might come to the conclusion that there are a great many more farmers in the hole now than ever before and a great many more are going further in the hole than ever before. Possibly one could go so far as to assume that farmers have at long last adopted the principle that you can borrow yourself into prosperity.
In this particular instance, Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not look at it with a jaundiced eye. I think this is something that has provided the farmers with a very badly needed service. I should like to compliment the minister and ask him to extend the benefits of the legislation even further.
There is one thing the minister said that I should like to underline. He pointed out that the administrative costs of this corporation, if I am not mistaken, amounted in the last year to .865 per cent, down from 1.6 per cent previously. I think this is something that we should really take a long look at, not only in this field but in many other fields as well. I recall that hon. members on the government side rose in their places in this house and objected to a bill to limit finance companies to charging 12 per cent because, to use their own words, they said that amount would not even meet the administration costs. When we compare that with the administrative cost of .865 per cent, of this crown corporation which is supplying the same service, surely it is something to give us all good reason to do some concentrated thinking.


William Moore Benidickson: Surely that is good socialism.


Edwin William Brunsden: There are not any repossessions.


Murdo William Martin: I would say that this is a good honest deal for farmers. Certainly we in this group are heartily in favour of it. As I said at the beginning, I should like to congratulate the minister on extending this legislation further, and I look forward to the day when similar honest deals are made available to other economic units in our society.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure that all of us are pleased with the time the minister took tonight to give a resume of the farm credit corporation. It was high time that we in this house heard again of the many good things which have flowed from this act.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River made some remarks and I should like to cover them a little later on.
First of all, I should like to cover my own constituency of Okanagan Boundary because the act has produced very definite and beneficial results there. All through the boundary country, the Similkameen and the Okanagan valley itself, we have had benefits from this act, which show that in its initial inception it was based right. It is the fulfilment of a need of the farmer; it is something that had to be done. As the hon. member for Timmins expressed it, he is completely in support of it and to use his exact words, it has provided the farmer with a very necessary service. I think we all agree with that.
One of the most important things that has come out of this act is the counselling by those who are administering the legislation. There is no question about it at all, the growth of money which is going into the purchase of agricultural land shows that this act deals with a situation which was becoming chronic in Canada. Many of the farmers' orchards were too small in size. In other words, they did not have the estimated requirements to make a decent living.
One of the things that comes to mind immediately is the fact that in many instances quite a large percentage of the loans made are in excess of that which was actually requested by the farmer or the orchardist. This came about through what I previously termed "counselling". In other words, a farmer or orchardist wishes to borrow money. He first takes his problem up with the farm credit corporation supervisor or appraiser and gets good solid advice. In other words, what has happened in many instances is this. The appraiser said, "Well, I do not believe that you will have an efficient organization which will put you in a better position if you have only so much. What you need to do is to consolidate all the way through, your debts and so forth, and put yourself on a firm financial basis". This was done throughout my area. I might say that originally the response to this act
Farm Credit Act
overloaded the facilities, but my understanding is that it is being run smoothly and efficiently now.
Certainly, great credit is due to those who came from the Veterans' Land Act administration to act as appraisers. They have done a fantastic job. Many of them spent long hours, to my own personal knowledge, in making these appraisals. They worked a great deal longer than many civil servants feel is appropriate. These chaps even used a great deal of their spare time to accommodate other people, and they certainly deserve a great deal of credit.
I should like now to say one or two words with regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. There is no doubt in my mind that he intended to try to fool the people of Canada by saying that there is no difference between this new farm credit corporation and the old Canadian farm loan board. He cited a number of figures and said, "Look; what is happening here is normal growth." Then he used that magical phrase which is used by all finance department experts, he related this to the gross national product. He referred to the years 1957, 1958 and 1959, and indicated that the amount ran up to between $18 million and $19 million. He said, relating that to the gross national product, that it showed normal growth, and that the Conservative government has not gone any further.
I should like him to take a look at the figures for 1960-61 which show the amount has increased to $60 million, which is a tremendous jump from the previous $19 million. Goodness knows what it is going to be this year. If one can gain an indication from the further amount required under the act, there will be a large increase. Certainly, as a statistician, the hon. member is getting into the class of the hon. member for Essex East. I know that if he looks at the little book he has in front of him which contains figures produced by the department, he will get a great deal of satisfaction from realizing that this government has produced something that the previous government never even thought of. We are having good success with this act and the minister and those who work under him deserve commendation.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: I just have one brief comment to make. I express my regret that the Canadian government will not do for Canadian fishermen what it is doing for the Canadian farmer, that is to provide direct loans through a federal agency to the fishermen, as this measure does for the farmers.


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, very briefly let me say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Some figures came to my desk

Farm Credit Act
the other day with regard to the percentage increase in the loans approved during the period from April 1 to May 15 this year as compared with the same period the year before. The increase is over 800 per cent. As I recall the figures, they were $1,450,000 for this year compared with $140,000 for last year. This is an indication, sir, that this policy is well accepted by Alberta farmers. While the legislation and the administration of it still have some bugs, and probably will have for some years I do feel, as one who at one time appraised for the Canadian farm loan board, that the raised limits are of a tremendous advantage.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River dealt with a specific case, and I should like to call that a specialty case. It is all right to talk about a substantial loan on a small poultry farm, but there is no assurance whatever that the persons making the application, admirable though they may be, will be in that business two years from now. There must be full security in respect of the amount. This is what this act calls for, and this is what is required.
Perhaps the minister will accept one suggestion from me, and that is that the appraisal fee, which has been steeply upgraded, should be returnable in whole or in part in the event of the loan being declined. I do feel that, particularly in the case of younger men and their families, this involves a hardship. I wish he would give some consideration to some kind of an amendment.


William Moore Benidickson: I take it the minister is going to deal with some of these questions on second reading. I should have asked him, when speaking earlier, if he would, in connection with the resume of operations between March 31, 1960 and March 31, 1961, report upon the borrowings of the corporation from the government and the rate of interest paid. I think it is obvious that this corporation has had to pay the government, under its tight money policy, as much as 5| per cent according to the last budget figures. In view of the fact we are dealing with $100 million additional, I think we should have a report for the most recent fiscal year.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-107, to amend the Farm Credit Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT


George Harris Hees: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act to provide that the two hundred million dollar limit of liability specified in section 21B of the act, now applicable to both contracts of insurance entered into by the corporation under section 21 and instruments guaranteed by the corporation under section 21A, be made applicable solely to contracts of insurance entered into under section 21; and further to provide a separate limit, in the amount of two hundred million dollars, on the liability of importers under outstanding instruments guaranteed by the corporation under section 21A.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.


George Harris Hees: The Export Credits Insurance Act at present provides a ceiling of $200 million for both export credits insurance under section 21 and export credit financing under section 21A.
Under section 21 in cases where the board of directors of the export credits insurance corporation is of the opinion that a proposed contract of insurance would impose upon the corporation a liability for a term or an amount in excess of that which the corporation would normally undertake, and if in the opinion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce it is in the national interest that the proposed contract of insurance to be entered into, the governor in council may authorize the corporation to issue the insurance policy.
Insurance policies in force today under section 21 total $125 million. As insurers of supplier credits, and in accordance with the Berne union understanding, the maximum period of credit that the corporation will insure is five years after delivery. This principle carries the government's approval.
Under section 21A the government has authority through the corporation to finance export sales of capital goods. It is intended that this financing would be provided only where credit terms extending beyond five years are required. Financing commitments under section 21A today total $58 million. Thus, $183 million is committed out of the $200 million available. This leaves only $17 million available for both additional insurance under section 21 and any long term financing under section 21A.
The bill proposes that $200 million available for both insurance under section 21 and financing under section 21A be allocated solely to insurance, and that an additional $200 million be provided for export financing.

Both export credits insurance and export credit financing are an important part of our drive to get Canadian manufacturers into the export markets of the world. The government for its part is doing everything possible to encourage exporters. We had the export trade promotion conference last December; we have held a number of trade conferences around the country since that time; in a splendid example of co-operation between the government and the banks, the nine Canadian chartered banks have established the Export Finance Corporation of Canada, Ltd., which will make financing readily available to capital goods exporters who have export credits insurance; and finally, in cases where longer terms of credit than five years are required and are justified, the government will provide the necessary financing under the Export Credits Insurance Act.
With these facilities in Canada we are offering Canadian exporters the equivalent of anything available to exporters in any other country. I am more than pleased to have to come to parliament to ask for an increase in the financing authority under section 21A of the Export Credits Insurance Act. This requirement shows that our potential is expanding and that exporters are being given every possible assistance to help them increase export sales, both by minimizing their losses with the protection of export credits insurance, and by helping them quote on large orders for capital equipment by providing financing possibilities.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: I thank the minister for his explanation of this resolution. I think tonight the committee would understand it as a friendly remark if I referred to him as the honourable and somewhat breathless Minister of Trade and Commerce. I think I could make that reference in the sure and certain knowledge that it would be well understood in the sense in which it was uttered tonight.


George Harris Hees: I agree with that statement.


George James McIlraith: In 1959 when the provisions contained in section 21A and 21B of the act were added to the legislation the government retained the limit on the power to insure under special circumstances with the approval of the governor in council under section 21 and the added power to guarantee and discount paper under section 21A at $200 million, which was the amount that had formerly been the ceiling on insurance only under section 21. In other words, there was in effect a reduction of the amount of business authorized to be covered.
I recall on that occasion raising the point with the then minister of trade and commerce. Indeed, if hon. members will take the trouble to check Hansard, I think they 90205-6-394
Export Credits Insurance Act would find that there was a bit of a hassle over a procedural point because on that occasion the legislation was not preceded by a resolution. In any event, I am glad to see that the authority for insuring under section 21 is being separated, as to the limit of the money available, from the authority to guarantee and discount paper under section 21A. Indeed, at the time section 21A was enacted in 1959, I had gone so far as to suggest that it might more properly be done under a separate corporation as is the case in the United States. However, the government did not see fit to follow that policy and I have no special criticism to offer of that fact. But it is clear that the authority under the two sections should be kept wholly separate and that the authority for the larger amount of guaranteed paper and the larger amount of insurance under section 21 should be granted.
I wonder whether the minister would mind putting in somewhat categorical form on the second reading of the bill based on this resolution the amount of insurance outstanding at the latest available date under section 13 of the act. The amount outstanding which he gave tonight was under section 21 of the act, that is insurance on contracts approved by the governor in council where it is the opinion of the government that the proposed contracts of insurance will impose upon the corporation a liability for a term or an amount in excess of that which the corporation would normally undertake in relation to any one for which authority was being sought. Then will he give the amount separately under 21A of the paper that has been guaranteed and the amount of any paper that has been purchased under the provisions of section 21A. If he could put those figures on the record at second reading it would be helpful.
I wish to raise briefly one other matter that I had asked the minister to consider when the 1959 legislation was before the house at the committee stage. I refer to the provision for tabling the orders in council passed under the act. The requirement is now contained in section 21B, subparagraph 4 which reads as follows:
All orders in council made under sections 21 and 21A while parliament is in session shall be laid before parliament during such session and, if made while parliament is not in session, shall be laid before parliament at the next ensuing session.
That provision, as will be seen, merely requires the tabling of orders in council passed under the section of the act on the closing day of a session. Indeed on June 9 there was tabled a quite important order in council dated September 16, 1960. The tabling of it at that late date was in full compliance with the law as it exists, but it surely is not a satisfactory procedure. I would hope that the



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Export Credits Insurance Act minister would look at the possibility of making a slight amendment in that requirement so that it could be dealt with at the committee stage of the bill.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, in connection with the Export Credits Insurance Act I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question relating to the statement made on Saturday by the Minister of Agriculture referring to the sale of wheat to Poland.
First of all I would suggest to the minister that when announcements of this kind are made the minister should perhaps refer to bushels rather than tons. Most of us better understand figures in connection with the sale of wheat if they are given in bushels rather than tons.
We were not given details as to the utilization of the Export Credits Insurance Act. The phrase used was simply that the terms would be the same as those that applied to the previous sale. I think that was some years ago. My recollection is that it involved a 10 per cent cash payment and a 30 per cent payment for each of three years. Is that what is involved in the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture on Saturday last?


George Harris Hees: That is my recollection, Mr. Chairman, but I will be glad to check on it accurately and give the hon. member the answer when we come to second reading.


William Moore Benidickson: My second question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce relates to the sale of wheat to China. Will the Export Credits Insurance Act be involved in connection with the transactions that have taken place to date, or is the credit involved something that has been arranged by the wheat board itself through the banks or otherwise?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I should like to give an accurate statement on these matters and I will give the facts to the hon. member on second reading.


William Moore Benidickson: That will be satisfactory.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Hees thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-108, to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Next sitting.


George James McIlraith: Next sitting.



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING PURCHASE AND SALE OF SECURITIES BY MINISTER, ETC.

Gordon Minto Churchill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Financial Administration Act to permit the Minister of Finance to buy and to sell securities guaranteed by Canada as well as securities of Canada: to permit the governor in council to authorize the deletion from the accounts of debts due to Her Majesty not exceeding one thousand dollars and to also permit the treasury board to make regulations for the deletion from the accounts of small debts not exceeding one hundred dollars, rather than twenty-five dollars as at present; and to provide for further amendments in connection with the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. House in committee of the whole on a certain proposed resolution to amend the Financial Administration Act. Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee might wish to have a rather brief explanation of the purpose of this resolution.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Richard Albert Bell: Financial Administration Act for the deletion of small debts not exceeding $100 instead of $25 as at present.


William Moore Benidickson: What section is that?


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: I think section 23(1) is the particular section to which I am now referring. There will be an amendment of that section.
There are other incidental amendments mainly for the purpose of clarity and simplification of language. At present, section 32 makes no reference to the "rendering of services" and the amendment will make it clear that a certificate is required for this purpose. Similarly the present section 35 makes no reference to "work performed" and the amendment will clearly authorize that payment may be made during the 30 day period following the end of the fiscal year for "work performed".
It is proposed to enact a new subsection to section 95 of the act. This new subsection will permit the comptroller to make recovery of overpayments of salary, wages, pay and pay and allowances from any moneys payable to the person to whom such overpayment is made without the necessity of complying with the procedural requirements of subsection (1) -of section 95. This will result in greater administrative efficiency but will in no way impair the rights of the individual since recovery will only be made with respect to overpayments which it is clear the individual had no right to receive. The comptroller by section 36(3) of the act is presently -empowered to recover any accountable advance or any portion thereof that is not repaid or accounted for out of any moneys payable by Her Majesty to the person to whom the advance was made. The proposed amendment will provide a quick and efficient means of recovering overpayments of salary, wages, pay and pay and allowances in the same manner.
The committee will see that these are all somewhat technical and detailed amendments which I believe it will be simpler to discuss when the bill is before the house.


William Moore Benidickson: I am sure the committee appreciates the explanation given by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. I was surprised, having read only the resolution, which is all any of us could read before we reached this stage of the legislation, to find that the parliamentary secretary seemed to emphasize and concentrate upon the fact that we were to get a bill having something to do with a change relative to the assigning of debts, contracts, the forgiveness of debts and so on. I think parliament is entitled to a better explanation of government intentions in a resolution than

we have been given in this one, the parliamentary secretary having told us what he did tonight. This resolution is not a new one and it therefore cannot involve any new idea on the part of the government-any idea it might not have had two months ago. It was given to us on May 29, and there is not a word in it with respect to assignment of debt.
It does refer to three things upon which I was prepared to speak. The parliamentary secretary referred to four points, and one of them, naturally, was something of which members of parliament would have no knowledge until he spoke, because there is no reference to it in this resolution. Of course, we shall wait for the bill.
The first of the three matters with which I am prepared to deal concerns the permission to be granted to the Minister of Finance to buy and sell securities guaranteed by Canada. I know of no securities in that category other than those of the Canadian National Railways. The parliamentary secretary has said it would not be possible for the minister to buy and sell those securities at the present time. He did not say why it has not been possible in the past, nor did he tell us why it is considered advantageous that he should be able to do so in the future. I hope that on second reading we shall have a little more information given us both as to the departmental view on this question of why it was not possible in the past and as to why it would be advantageous in the future.
With respect to what I call the second item, the permission which will be given to the cabinet to delete from the accounts debts not exceeding $1,000. I think this relates, as the parliamentary secretary said, to section 23 of the existing Financial Administration Act. I would expect, inasmuch as nothing has been said to the contrary, that there will be no change in subsection (2) of section 23, and if so I do not think that this proposal will encounter any objection from this side. I refer to what I presume to be the fact that while we are increasing the amount which may be deleted at the instance of the cabinet it would still be subject to a report in the public accounts for the year in question.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is correct.


William Moore Benidickson: That is being done. Well, we all realize that business is getting bigger in volume and I think it is sensible that the same type of operation should prevail there with a larger dollar amount.
The third item on my list is the amendment which will provide for the deletion from the accounts of debts not exceeding $100 in place of the former limit of $25. The

hon. gentleman said that this was contained in section 23. I just cannot find it for the moment-I may have an old consolidated copy of the Financial Administration Act. However, we can certainly find it between now and second reading.


Thomas Miller Bell: The section is 23 (la). The present provision is for $25 and that is being increased to $100.


William Moore Benidickson: Well, for the moment I have been using the audit office guide compiled by the former auditor general and I may not have the latest amendments in that respect. Again I think there is no objection to this deletion of debts. I do feel, however, that the attention of the committee should be drawn to the fact that this matter of the assignment of debts was not referred to in the notice given us in regard to this resolution, although it appeared worthy of considerable comment in the speech made by the parliamentary secretary. I feel also that it is not too desirable, although not unusual, to add at the conclusion of a resolution of this kind the words, "to provide for further amendments in connection with the administration of the act", about which fortunately we had, as we do not always have, some detailed explanation. I do think that any administration should attempt to inform members of parliament, if possible, in greater detail in advance than has been done in this regard.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Churchill (for the Minister of Finance)
thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-109, to amend the Financial Administration Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: At the next sitting.
12, 1961	6241
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, that completes the business for today. The committee has shown commendable activity in getting the business completed today. I am very grateful to hon. members for extending the time for a few minutes at six o'clock to complete the business in which we were then engaged. I think it would be quite reasonable to adjourn now. Before doing so, I should like to indicate the business for tomorrow.
We will first proceed with third reading of Bill No. C-98, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, followed by a motion in the name of the Prime Minister to set up a special committee to consider and recommend changes to the War Measures Act; to be followed by second reading of the bill to amend the Farm Credit Insurance Act. Having completed that business we will then proceed to second reading of the bill to amend the Financial Administration Act, followed by consideration in the committee of the whole of amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act, which have been reported by the standing committee on veterans affairs, and will appear on the order paper tomorrow. Having completed all that business the last item will be second reading of the bill to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I could ask the minister if the government hopes to put more important and perhaps more controversial legislation on the order paper some time in the near future?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, in view of that indication of a desire for more controversial legislation, we shall try to accommodate the hon. gentleman. If the house completes the business outlined for tomorrow I think we will be able to see our way clear to complete the business of this session by the end of this month.
On motion of Mr. Churchill the house adjourned at 10.17 p.m.

Tuesday, June 13, 1961