1961-05-26

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister give the house an up to date report in respect to the alleged violations of the cease fire in Laos?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, since the commission returned to Laos it has received a number of complaints about breaches of the cease fire. These complaints have been from both sides. They have been considered and discussed with the leaders of the principal parties.
The commission has received assurances that no intentional violation of the cease fire had taken place and that whatever actions had occurred had been taken under provocation and in exercise of the right of self defence.
The hon. member for Trinity will realize that absolute control over widely scattered forces is difficult because of the absence of a detailed cease fire agreement, the nature of the terrain, which of course is exceedingly difficult, and the lack of communication between commands. Nevertheless the commission has decided to send representatives to two areas, one in the north and one in the south, where the most serious incidents are reported to have taken place. The intention of the commission to carry out these investigations was communicated to the leaders of the various parties in Laos on May 22; that is, four days ago. As yet I have no information on the results of the investigations.
I might say in addition that, as the hon. member will recall, at our urging in Geneva the co-chairmen, the United Kingdom and the Soviet union, wired the chairman of the international commission for a submission as to what equipment that commission would need. The reply has now been received and it goes into some detail in connection with the requirements of the commission. If these 90205-6-341J
requirements are met by the co-chairmen the work of the commission will be greatly facilitated.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the minister including the short range aircraft and helicopters which he requested in order to improve the communications between commands? Can the minister say whether they have been supplied yet?


Howard Charles Green: During the discussions in Geneva I dealt at considerable length with the need for airplanes and helicopters.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Before asking it, I must say that I wish the editor of the Province had been here to see the response when the minister rose. Would the minister inform the house whether there is daily communication between our representatives in Laos and the department here?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are getting reports regularly from our commissioner in Laos, Mr. Leon Mayrand.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DISCUSSIONS WITH PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Lafreniere (Quebec-Monimo-rency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would care to make a report to the house in respect of the visit of Mr. Ben-Gurion, the prime minister of Israel?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the house is aware, the prime minister of Israel ended his visit today. A joint communique is being issued which will set out, in that detail characteristic of communiques, a resume of the various discussions that took place. I am sure I am reinforced in my belief that meetings between leaders of various countries are most beneficial. I found the visit of Prime Minister Ben-Guirion most helpful, and a further indication of the close relationship between the two countries. I think perhaps it is proper for me to table the communique although I have it only in English, the French translation not being available yet. This communique sets out the various facts to which I have made reference.
(Translation):


Robert B. Lafrenière: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
5404	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):
Could the Prime Minister tell the house whether there has been any request tor military assistance?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there was none. The prime minister of Israel naturally discussed questions relative to the middle east. However, there was no request either directly or indirectly for military equipment or the like.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister following the one I asked yesterday. Can the Prime Minister today inform the house whether he had been made aware of the contents of the letter from the premier of British Columbia before Canada signed the treaty with the United States on the Columbia project?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. gentleman. I would have done so yesterday had I had the opportunity. The answer is no.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask him if he has anything further to report on the Columbia river project, after seeing the premier of British Columbia yesterday.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I had a discussion yesterday afternoon with the premier of British Columbia on the subject. I must correct one possible misapprehension that I detected in the hon. member's question. I gather that he thought Premier Bennett came here. In fact we met at a conference at which both of us had been invited to deliver addresses. We had a few minutes together to continue the discussions which had been held in March in Victoria.
The discussion was carried on in the same frank manner that characterized the meetings in Victoria. I may say that I did submit, as I told the house earlier I would, the suggestion or the request that he might give his content to the tabling in the house of the correspondence which has passed between us. He has given his consent on behalf of the government of British Columbia to the tabling in the house of the correspondence which has passed between us up until the time of my visit to Victoria at the end of March.
IMr. Lafreniere.l

Therefore, if I may, I should like to table two copies of the correspondence passing between Premier Bennett and myself, the first letter being dated December 8, 1959 and the last, March 3, 1961.
Mr. Speaker, these letters are in addition to those which have already been laid before the house. Following my statement to the house on my return from Victoria I laid before the house both the letter I had written to the premier previously, setting forth the federal government's financial proposal, along with the letter written to me by Premier Bennett, together with the two alternative financial proposals submitted by the government of that province.
I also drew attention yesterday to two letters which had been exchanged between us earlier this year. I now think this house, with the tabling of these letters this morning, is in possession of all the correspondence which has passed between Premier Bennett and myself in relation to financial proposals, down to the time of our meeting in Victoria at the end of March last.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is the minister suggesting that these very important letters be appended to Hansard of this day?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if it is the wish of hon. members that this correspondence be printed as an appendix, I have no objection at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house concur in the request that these documents be made an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear some objections.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, perhaps there is one fact I should mention. That is, Premier Bennett has not agreed yet to the tabling of a letter which I wrote him about a fortnight ago.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. J. Browne (Solicitor General):: On
May 19 the hon. member for Kootenay West directed a question to the Minister of Fisheries as follows:
In view of reports that dead codfish and herring have been noted floating in Newfoundland's Fortune bay and in other waters off the western shore, which is puzzling even the most experienced and oldest fishermen of that island province, would the minister inform the house whether he is having this situation investigated in an attempt to

discover what is causing the death of these fish and, particularly, whether radioactive wastes are a factor.
In the absence of the Minister of Fisheries, I should like to reply. This matter was thoroughly investigated by officials of the Department of Fisheries in Newfoundland, including Dr. Templeman, director of the biological station of the fisheries research board at St. John's. These officials report that the story in the press was exaggerated. The incident occurred during January or February of this year, and I am advised that it could have been caused by codfish pursuing herring bait and suddenly entering extremely cold water near the surface. The abrupt change in water temperature could easily cause mortality among the fish. The officials in Newfoundland also report it is extremely doubtful that the cause was radioactive waste. There is no evidence that large quantities of dead fish were involved.
I hope the hon. member will not think I am being unduly frivolous if I add that the poor fish are unlike human beings inasmuch as they get into trouble when they get into cold water.



INQUIRY AS TO ACTING LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Could it be indicated, out of the 18 members of the official opposition present, who is the leader of the opposition?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



REPORTED PROTEST AS TO TRANSPORTATION COST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gaston Clermont (Labelle):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a telegram from the Saguenay catholic union of farmers seeking to remedy the situation whereby farmers in the Saguenay district have to pay $10 to $20 more than western farmers for the transportation of grain in their area? Is any action by the government contemplated in order to correct this situation?


John George Diefenbaker: I have no knowledge of the receipt of that communication. However, I will ask the office and give the hon. gentleman an answer tomorrow.
Inquiries of the Ministry



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is prepared to answer a question I asked of him on May 13, of which he took notice. The question related to a comparison of delivery quotas in Manitoba with the other two western provinces. I might indicate to the minister that the Manitoba quota is considerably lower, according to the information I have.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: I was sorry that I did not have the information with me on the last occasion. Since it is now a week later, perhaps I should bring the information up to date. The hon. member asked for a comparison between May 8 and May 11, but I shall give the figures for May 8, May 11 and May 23. On May 8 Manitoba had 114 stations on a 2 bushel quota; on May 11, 38 and on May 23, 0; on a 3 bushel quota, there were 178 stations on May 8, 239 on May 11 and 193 on May 23; on a 4 bushel quota, there were 53 on May 8, 65 on May 11 and 132 on May 23; on a 5 bushel quota, 19 on May 8, 10 on May 11 and 19 on May 23; on a 6 bushel quota, none on May 8, 12 on May 11 and 20 on May 23.
Perhaps the figures can be best illustrated by a comparison with what happened between those two dates in all the provinces. In all provinces there were 213 stations on a 2 bushel quota on May 8, 58 on May 11 and none on May 23; on a 3 bushel quota there were 742 on May 8, 841 on May 11 and 627 on May 23; on a 4 bushel quota there were 394 on May 8, 419 on May 11 and 575 on May 23; on a 5 bushel quota there were 645 on May 8, 443 on May 11, and 445 on May 23; on a 6 bushel quota there were none on May 8, 233 on May 11 and 347 on May 23; on a 7 bushel quota there were none on May 8, none on May 11 and none on May 23.



COAL-INQUIRY AS TO SALE TO CUBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, as senior member of the opposition on the front benches this morning-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -in age, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of an article appearing in the Globe and Mail of May 24, 1961, to the effect that Cuba needs a million tons of coal per

Inquiries of the Ministry year for its new iron and steel mills and smelters, and since it is reported that French, German and other European mines are earnestly soliciting this business, would the minister inform the house what is being done by the Canadian government to promote the sale of Nova Scotia coal to Cuba?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member for Kootenay West for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. As he knows, this item in the Globe and Mail is a letter from Mr. E. C. Lantz of Kitchener. In answer, my officials advise me there is grave doubt whether what is stated in this letter is a fact. We have been in touch with the situation since June of last year. There are two steel rolling mills in Cuba which we understand are electrically heated.
According to Cuban statistics the total import requirements of coal and coke for that country for all purposes have been between 200,000 and 250,000 tons per annum. The trade commissioner has been advised to investigate this report.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Skeena asked whether there was any truth in the allegation that immigration officers in Saint John, New Brunswick, were suppling beds and bedding to immigrant strikebreakers at the Saint John Dry dock Company, whose employees have been on strike for the past four or five weeks.
The first complaint I received in the matter of this strike was from the industrial union of marine and shipbuilding workers of Canada in Saint John. It was alleged that the Saint John Drydock Company intended to import labour from abroad to replace Canadian workers on strike. For some time prior to the strike this company had been recruiting, with the assistance of my officials abroad, specialized workers in the United Kingdom. They had been unable to recruit these workers anywhere in Canada, even with the assistance of the national employment service. To the best of my knowledge only a few men came to Canada before the strike began. Since the strike immigration officials in the United Kingdom have been holding in abeyance applications received from prospective immigrants coming forward to the Saint John
[Mr. Herridge.l
Drydock Company until confirmation is received that the company is no longer strike bound.
The second complaint was from the general strike committee in Saint John. It was alleged that the local immigration office was assisting the company by recruiting strikebreakers from newly arrived immigrants and was supplying them with beds and bedding at a private home in Saint John. An investigation has clearly established that there is no basis whatever for this complaint. The owner of the private home which was mentioned in the complaint is not even known to our officers, and no immigrant has been referred for employment to the Saint John Drydock Company since the strike began. It has been suggested to the general strike committee that these matters could best be clarified and settled by direct liaison between the committee in Saint John and the local immigration office.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arlhur Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the Minister of Transport if he would comment on the circulation of a press story in the United Kingdom that Canada, through his department, is co-operating with the United States, the United Kingdom and France in a space project relating to or involving communication by satellite?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with both the United States and the United Kingdom authorities regarding research and development work in this field, and we expect to be sending some senior departmental technical engineers to work with a special United Kingdom team in this field on a civil research project which is being developed on an international basis. I am not in a position to say more at this stage, but hope to be able to report in greater detail at a later time.
(Translation):



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY QUEBEC  RESULTS OF STUDY RESPECTING ILE AUX TOURTES BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourgei (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister tell us whether the survey that his engineers

Inquiries of the Ministry
were to make regarding the Ile-aux-Tourtes request for the transfer of some 34 Moncton bridge has been completed? As the minister men to other shops, but net reduction of staff knows, that bridge is to be part of the because of the cessation of heavy passenger trans-Canada highway.	work will be less than 20.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, or this morning, the engineers of my department received from the province of Quebec public works department the plans in question, which are under study at this moment.
(Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence whether he is in a position today to answer the question of which the associate minister took notice yesterday, having to do with the inquiry into the establishment and operation of the yacht club at Petawawa.


Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Yes, the report has been received.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question. Can the parliamentary secretary indicate to the house the findings of the report?


Egan Chambers: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to refer the hon. member's question to the minister.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: With reference to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Westmorland concerning the passenger car shop situation at Moncton, the management states that early in March the employees were advised that because of substantial reductions in passenger car mileage during the past five years, together with the acquisition of newer equipment which has lengthened the average shop cycle for passenger cars, the work load for passenger car repairs has been reduced substantially across the system. Accordingly it was indicated that it was the intention to discontinue gradually heavy repairs to passenger equipment at Moncton. Light passenger repairs would continue to be performed.
The current situation is that a number of employees previously engaged in passenger car work have been transferred to freight car work at Moncton. Discussions are continuing with the employees' representatives on their



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (Si. Denis):: May I direct a question to the Postmaster General. According to a very important press release from his office the Postmaster General is very young, very active and very fast, travelling 9,000 miles across this country and the United States and even riding in a chuckwagon at Calgary. All this occupied the space of three and half days, during which he beat the clock and broke the sound barrier. Did the minister consider the advisability of carrying the mail with him, so that at least letters from Premier Bennett could reach the Minister of Finance in a shorter period of time?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: No, Mr. Speaker, I find that the mail is very effectively carried by the normal service. However, I do want the hon. member to know that at least at the opening of the wonderful new post office in Calgary I had occasion to think of him because of the view I had looking straight ahead while riding in a chuckwagon behind some white horses.


Azellus Denis: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; before the hon. member asks his supplementary question perhaps I should remind him that the best humourists do not attempt to cap their own stories.


Azellus Denis: This is a more serious question, Mr. Speaker, and should receive a more serious answer. As the taxpayers' money flies with the Postmaster General, will he tell the house, in between trips, the cost of these travels?


William McLean Hamilton: The
hon. member can put a question on the order paper, Mr. Speaker, if he wants that kind of information. I would point out to him that the purpose of these trips was to attend the postmasters association meetings in Edmonton and in Winnipeg. I am leaving again tonight for Peterborough for another such meeting, and then going on to Chicago to say something about Canadian postal policy and postage stamps. If the hon. member feels that this administration should not meet the postmasters and learn something about their problems, that it should not see that Canadian views are expressed across this country and in the United States, then I may say that I certainly do not agree with him.

Supply-Justice


Azellus Denis: I was asking about the cost ol these travels. There is no reason why the minister could not give the cost of his next trip after he has returned home.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think perhaps the request relating to the cost was taken as a criticism of the journey and, in that sense, the answer was not out of order. In any event, if the hon. member wishes to know the cost he can put a question on the order paper.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
165. Departmental administration including annual contribution of $200 to the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada and $167,500 as grants to recognized private aftercare agencies as may be approved by treasury board, $1,194,583.
(Translation):
Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Chairman, examining the estimates submitted by the Department of Justice and comparing them with the main and supplementary estimates submitted for the previous fiscal year, or comparing them with those for 1959-60, I find certain discrepancies.
That is why I should like to put a few questions to the Minister of Justice.
If one takes the blue book tabled this year, which indicates that this year the same method was followed as in every other year, one sees in the first column the amounts we are asked to vote for the current fiscal year; the second column shows the amounts voted by the house for the previous fiscal, that is the 1960-61 fiscal year.
That second column is made up of the main and supplementary estimates we voted. In addition, we have the supplementary estimates which were introduced only after the blue book was printed and distributed, I think, around February.
This year the same procedure was followed as in previous years, that is in 1960-61 and in 1959-60.
Having indicated, Mr. Chairman, what I believe to be the truth concerning the procedure to be followed and that which was followed, I should like now to make a few remarks based on figures taken from the estimates, and with your permission I shall begin with the fiscal year 1959-60. These figures include items to be discussed as well as statutory votes.
According to page 34 of the blue book for the fiscal year 1959-60, we voted an amount of $27,335,204 in the main estimates.

Later during the year we were asked to vote supplementary estimates. At this point I refer the committee to page 4 of the supplementary estimates. We had voted an amount of $1,727,541.
These amounts together give a total of $29,062,745.
We also voted other supplementary estimates included in the new supplementary estimates No. 2. The amount was $52,300, which gives a grand total of $29,115,045 for the year 1959-60.
And now, I want to refer to the blue book for the 1960-61 fiscal year and to the second column which includes main and supplementary estimates for the previous year; I find a total of $29,062,745, which is the amount we voted then in main and supplementary estimates. This means that at the time the blue book for the 1960-61 fiscal year was printed, supplementary estimates No. 2 were not included.
Now, if I take the amounts we voted last year and that we find in the first column of the 1960-61 blue book, I find-at page 34 of that book-that the total amount of the main estimates is $26,382,901. However, last year we voted the further supplementary estimates No. 2 which, according to page 4, amounted to $719,382. We also voted the further supplementary estimates No. 4 which according to page 2 were to the amount of $365,000. Those three amounts make a total of $27,467,283.
According to my findings, this year's book of estimates was distributed to us after we had voted those supplementary estimates No. 4. Well, this addition I just mentioned completes the total amount of $27,467,283.
Perhaps the minister, after I am through with my remarks, would tell me whether I am right and give me, at the same time, an appropriate explanation.
In the second column this year's estimates, the main and statutory estimates that we have voted make up a total of $28,328,287. So there is quite a difference. But I will go further.
A while ago, I said that as far as I know, the book of estimates for the current year was distributed during the month of February. Now, in March, we voted an amount of $82,000 under new supplementary estimates No. 5. Adding to that amount the main estimates, new supplementary estimates No. 2 and new supplementary estimates No. 4, we get a total of $27,549,283.
As I have just said, the total in the second column of the blue book for the current year which, if I am not mistaken, is supposed to indicate the total amount we have voted

for the previous year, is $28,328,287. Now,
I notice that all in all we have voted only $27,549,283.
How is it then that the blue book indicates that $28,328,287 has been voted that year, that is $779,004 more than we actually voted? Have there been transfers of funds or changes in the administration? Have additional amounts which concern other departments been transferred under the Department of Justice? I feel those are questions we have a right to ask.
To summarize my point, if we compare the total of the funds voted for 1959-60 with the amount shown in the second column of the blue book for 1960-61, we find that the figures are the same-not including the supplementary estimates-that is $29,062,745. On the other hand, a comparison between the total amount -including the last supplementary estimates for last year-that is $27,549,283, and the amount indicated in the second column of the blue book for 1961-1962, we find a discrepancy of $779,004.
Before continuing with my remarks on item No. 165, which shows an obvious discrepancy, I should like to ask the minister to give us the explanations which are necessary under the circumstances.
(Text):


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a very few remarks in connection with the bill of rights, because I have heard it mentioned both in the house and outside. This act, in the very brief time since last summer during which it has been in effect, has been frequently invoked and fulfils a notable function in our system of jurisprudence. I think a grave disservice is being done by those who seek to scoff at its usefulness by attempting to attribute to this law certain characteristics which were not and could not be attached to it, and then saying that the bill has failed in its purpose because in these respects it did not serve to protect certain individuals.
In the first instance, many of the cases where it has been suggested there has been a failure on the part of the bill of rights have been concerned with matters entirely within provincial jurisdiction. Time after time I have heard statements pointing out certain alleged weaknesses in this legislation with reference to injustices which it has created. In many of these cases there is no doubt that provincial laws and regulations were involved. It is my respectful submission that if much of the energy which is misdirected in improperly attacking and criticizing the bill of rights was instead used in trying to persuade provincial 90205-6-342
Supply-Justice
legislatures to pass complementary legislation, that is provincial bills of rights, which will have the same effect in the provincial field that this bill of rights has in the federal field, it would be a very fine thing.
In many cases there has been an erroneous conception of the way to make use of the law. Not only is it a shield against oppression; it is also a sword with which to obtain rights. But it is a sword that must be properly used. In many instances the person to use it is the individual whose rights have been curtailed or interfered with.
Thus if a person is removed from his employment because of his employer relying upon a clause or provision in the contract of employment, and the employee thinks the dismissal contravenes the bill of rights, one remedy is an action for damages for wrongful dismissal. This may not give the same measure of publicity for those in public life who seek publicity, and it may not make an interesting news story for those who write about it, but what is most important is that it does ensure some measure of reparation for those who are entitled to it.
I would ask the minister, before the estimates of his department are completed, to give the committee any statistical information he may have as to the number of instances in which the bill of rights has been invoked. I know that in due course there will be a body of jurisprudence built up and established in the law reports of the country. However, I am wondering whether at this time the minister or his officials have been able to secure any information as to the number of instances in which people have invoked the bill of rights in connection with certain matters before the courts.
I have read a great many news stories, as I am sure other hon. members have. If you take those as being that part of the iceberg which is above water, there is no question at all that this legislation, in the very brief time since it was passed, has been of great value and service. As a practising lawyer over many years I know there are instances which I look back upon where the presence of this legislation would have served to secure redress for my clients.
Before I resume my seat, Mr. Chairman, there are two other matters I should like to place before the minister under this item by way of suggestion. First there is the question of the procedure for dealing with appeals from magisterial convictions. I think the hon. member for Welland said the other day that before the magistrates' courts is where you find the greatest percentage of people who make their first contact with the administration of justice, and the right of appeal from

Supply-Justice
magistrates' courts should be carefully guarded. It has been my experience, and it has been brought to my attention, that sometimes difficulties and impediments do arise under section 722 of the Criminal Code, which is the section dealing with the procedure as to service of notice of appeal, because it is not possible to seek out and serve the respondent or the informant within the time limit provided by that section. Sometimes it is not possible to serve the person who was the informant and would be the respondent. This is particularly true in the more remote areas of the country and, I think, in many rural districts.
I would ask the minister to give some consideration to introducing an amendment to the code by which provision for substituted service could be provided. In addition I would ask the minister to give consideration to extending the time within which the notice should be served and the proper affidavits filed either before or after the expiration of the 30 day limit. In my experience this would be very useful and would give appellants the right to which they are entitled which sometimes, because of the present rigid requirement of the law, is not the case. This is a statutory right of appeal, and all judges insist that there be rigid compliance with all the requirements.
The other question I should like to ask the minister at this time is whether he would give consideration or has given consideration to amending the present law in the Criminal Code where penalties and offences are set out in so far as driving automobiles is concerned. The minister will recall that a number of years ago we had what was known as the offence of dangerous driving. As I now read the code we are limited at the present time to the offence of criminal negligence. It has been my experience, and this experience is reinforced by statements which have been made to me by people who should know, that it is becoming increasingly difficult to secure a conviction on a charge of criminal negligence.
Having in mind the slaughter and the necessity of striving to cut down the accidents and this dreadful toll of human lives which continues to infest our highways, does the minister think it might be worth while to consider restoring an offence of an intermediate nature where convictions might more readily be obtained, rather than having only the offence of criminal negligence, of which juries and judges are loath to convict?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want to take advantage of this item to bring to the attention of the minister and the committee a certain 
circumstance that affected a young lady, which clearly demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the present bill of rights to protect the freedoms of Canadians. I support the principle of the bill, but I am rising briefly to bring this to the attention of the minister to indicate that we must go further. We have either to incorporate the bill in the constitution or get agreement with the provinces to enact enabling legislation.
In the Calgary Albertan of May 11 this year I read an article entitled "Free speech? Fire girl for talk". The article continues:
Miss Valerie Smith, the young Calgary draftsman who spoke a kind word for Cuba under Castro at Tuesday's meeting of the Knights of the Round Table, has been fired from her job. Miss Smith, an employee of Midwest Surveys Ltd. for the past 3J years, was dismissed Wednesday morning by the company's manager, J. J. Simpson, after an account of her speech at the Knights of the Round Table appeared in The Albertan.
I have a copy of the speech here which I have read with interest, and hon. members may wish to know that the factual information contained in it is based on a report by Professor Samuel Shapiro, assistant professor of history at Michigan State University (Oakland) and also on various articles which appeared in The Nation which as we all know, is a United States magazine.
I think this raises an important question, and the reaction to this young lady's dismissal shows the extent of the public interest in the preservation of fundamental rights and human freedoms for Canadian citizens. No one with an objective turn of mind, reading this speech, could see any reason for this young lady suffering dismissal for expressing her views. Some people might not agree with those views, but they are presented in a fair and clear manner. The public interest to which I have referred was indicated by the Knights of the Round Table themselves, who have written letters to various members of this house. Here is one of these letters, addressed to the hon. member for Assiniboia:
We, the undersigned, were all present at the meeting of the Calgary Knights of the Round Table on Tuesday, May 9, when Miss Valerie Smith spoke on Cuba.
Speaking only as individuals, and not officially for the Table, we wish to state our opinion that Miss Smith's report on what she saw in Cuba was very similar to those of other unprejudiced observers, dealing, as it did, chiefly with the improved living conditions of the rural population and better educational opportunities generally.
I have had Canadian Press men tell me that within the last two or three weeks.
The Knights of the Round Table is an organization of business and professional men and has been in existence for some 35 years. It prides

itself on offering a platform for the free expression of opinion on any question however controversial. Consequently we feel very concerned at the unjust treatment of Miss Smith by her employer.
This letter is signed by half a dozen members of the Calgary branch of the Knights of the Round Table. I noticed, in addition, a press item which appeared on May 12 in the Albertan, as follows:
The Knights of the Round Table, a group of leading Calgary business and professional men, Thursday night "deplored" the firing of Miss Valerie Smith for expressing pro-Cuban and pro-Castro sentiments.
Miss Smith, who addressed the Round Table on her return from Cuba, was fired from her drafting job with Midwest Surveys Ltd.
In a statement to the Albertan, Charles S. Lee, president of the Knights of the Round Table said "We are a forum for free expression where all shades of opinion may be presented."
That is the very basis of democracy:
"The existence of freedom of speech in the community is put to the test when someone expresses an unpopular view.
"Any action to penalize a speaker or deprive him or her of natural and legitimate rights is deplored by this Table, and we are anxious that any action of this kind should not pass without protest".
Then again, I notice that the Alberta federation of labour has shown an interest in this case, as is clear from the following report which also appeared in the Albertan on May 16:
The Alberta federation of labour will request the provincial government to immediately enact a fair employment practices act, Frank Bodie, A.F.L. executive secretary, announced Monday.
The move of labour was sparked by the dismissal of Miss Valerie Smith following her recent talk to the Knights of the Round Table in which she praised conditions as she saw them in Castro's Cuba on a two week holiday.
The A.F.L. will also protest the company's action in a letter to the board of industrial relations.
In addition to the numerous articles and letters which have appeared in the Alberta newspapers, we have received a good number of letters ourselves. I have one in my hand, Mr. Chairman, asking that some of us should raise the question in the house since it is felt to be a supreme example of discrimination but which has far wider implications-these are the words of my correspondent-in that it will result in the muzzling of any citizen who does not choose to be subservient to the generally accepted opinions. This letter goes on to ask that the question be brought before the Minister of Justice in order that he may consider whether it would be possible to amend the bill of rights so as to make it more effective, or to incorporate the bill of rights in our constitution.
I fully appreciate the difficulties in this regard because of the nature of our constitution, but I do think a case such as this 90205-6-342i
Supply-Justice
demonstrates clearly the necessity for the government to continue to press for the incorporation of the bill of rights into the constitution or for the co-operation of the provinces in passing enabling legislation to support it.
The dismissal of this girl was, possibly, an action taken in haste because the manager in question was irritated by the views she had expressed. As I said before, in my opinion the speech was very tolerant and moderate in tone. It expressed the view that Castro is doing a great deal for the Cuban people, and so on, but that is a matter of opinion. Good gracious; if we do not allow an individual to express unpopular opinions, democracy cannot survive. We need to take an example from Great Britain, where you can go any day of the week, particularly to Hyde park, and hear people talking about the desirability of burning down Buckingham Palace; and there is a constable on duty nearby to protect them while they say it.
I shall never forget being in Britain during the Suez crisis. I was in the House of Lords on the second day of the debate. The universities sent delegations to London to protest the action being taken by the government. They came in busloads from Oxford, from Bristol, from Manchester and from other towns all over Britain. They paraded in front of the palace of Westminster. We were provided with a stand in front of the building by an official of the commonwealth parliamentary association and we saw them as they went by holding up banners containing such slogans as "Down with Eden", "Stop the Murders", and all the rest of it. Policemen were walking alongside. Then following were thousands of members of the communist party carrying the union jack and the red flag, marching in columns. Those in the crowd, instead of hurling bottles and invectives behaved in an altogether different manner. I heard one old cockney standing to my right shouting as the red flag went by "Blimey, mate, where did you get that bloody old rag from?"
That is the spirit which preserves democracy; that is the spirit in which fair play is maintained, and in these circumstances people rally to the defence of democracy. People who become irritated and are impelled to all kinds of hasty action when opinions are expressed with which they do not agree, do not understand what democracy really means.
As I say, I undertook to bring this question to the attention of the minister and I should like him, later on, to refer to the incident in question and inform the committee what is being done at the present time to secure a wider acceptance of the bill of rights

Supply-Justice
and ensure fundamental freedom to all persons. I should like him to tell us, further, what educational work is being done by the federal government to secure a wider understanding of the principles behind this bill.


Mr. Peters:: I should like to endorse what has been said by my hon. friend from Kootenay West. I have received a number of letters on the same subject, the firing of Miss Smith, from people in my riding as well as from others outside my riding. I think the public in general is entitled to know just what the bill of rights means to them and to what extent it protects them in relation to this matter of free speech. An article appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of May 17 entitled "Bill of Rights Penned on Calfskin". It says:
Copies will be distributed widely. Already there are 15,000 orders for it. The price is likely to be around $1. But nobody will get the bill of rights alone. All will have this extract from Mr. Diefen-baker's speech:
"I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what X believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom, I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind."
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we as Canadians should ask whether this is a right which we now possess, or a law that has been passed enabling individuals to go to court to prove their rights by litigation. If the latter is the case, I suggest this right will not apply to the majority of Canadians at any time, and that they are no better off than before. We in this country have always believed that laws of various kinds, in respect of various subjects, protected the people of this country from violations of the four freedoms which have been fundamental to our way of life. I also suggest that Canadians as a whole believe that the bill of rights is a bill which the government intended to see implemented on behalf of the people of this country so that litigation would be unnecessary to establish those rights, that the rights were inherent to all Canadians.
I have in my hand a copy of a letter from a resident of Alberta where the offence took place to which I have referred. This letter is addressed to my leader.


Mr. Drysdale:: Who is that, Mr. Douglas?


William Arnold Peters: I should like to read a portion of this letter. The letter is dated May 11, 1961 and reads as follows:
Since you are one of the few M.P.'s who are championing the cause of true Canadianism-


Mr. McCleave:: What a laugh that is.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, this may be a laugh to some hon. members, but I am sure the people of Alberta are well aware that my leader, the hon. member for Assiniboia, is one of the few Canadians who champion the cause of Canadianism.	,


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the hon. member for Assiniboia. I thought the hon. member for Timiskaming was referring to himself.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: The same holds true for the hon. member for Assiniboia.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the letter reads as follows:
Since you are one of the few M.P.'s who are championing the cause of true Canadianism and attempting to restrict the foreign control of our natural resources and way of life, I am enclosing the attached clipping from this morning's local paper.
This is surely in direct contradiction to our bill of rights and everything that we stand for in Canada today and, I thought, the so-called free world.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, how is this relevant to the estimates of the Minister of Justice?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I suggest we are getting into the problem of deciding whether we are discussing the estimates of the Minister of Justice or the estimates of the Attorney General of Canada, who administers our laws and is responsible for that administration as attorney general. Perhaps the hon. member who made the interjection could inform me that we are discussing only the estimates as applied to the Department of Justice, and thereby solve a problem which has puzzled me for some time. If it is the contention of the hon. member that we are only considering the estimates of the Minister of Justice, I should like the minister to clarify this point. Is the minister the attorney general, as well as the Minister of Justice, serving in the same capacity for Canada in relation to the administration of our laws as the attorney general does in each province?
Having heard nothing from the minister to the contrary, I assume we are discussing his function as attorney general as well as Minister of Justice.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, does the hon. member wish to know the functions of the Attorney General of Canada? If so, it may help him to be relevant in his discussion if I read section 5 of the Department of Justice Act, which is as follows:
5. The Attorney General of Canada shall
(a)	be entrusted with the powers and charged with the duties that belong to the office of the attorney general of England by law or usage, so far as those powers and duties are applicable to

Canada, and also with the powers and duties that, by the laws of the several provinces, belonged to the office of attorney general of each province up to the time when the British North America Act 1867, came into effect, so far as those laws under the provisions of the said act are to be administered and carried into effect by the government of Canada;
(b)	advise the heads of the several departments of the government upon all matters of law connected with such departments;
(c)	be charged with the settlement and approval of all instruments issued under the Great Seal of Canada;
(d)	have the regulation and conduct of all litigation for or against the crown or any public department, in respect of any subject within the authority or jurisdiction of Canada;
(e)	be charged generally with such other duties as are at any time assigned by the governor in council to the Attorney General of Canada.
I should say that I personally fail to see how, under that description of the duties of the Attorney General of Canada, there rests upon him any responsibility with respect to action, such as the hon. member has made reference to, over which jurisdiction is entirely provincial.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that if one looks at the estimates it will be seen that the salaries paid to the Minister of Justice and to the Solicitor General are included in the same estimate. I suggest, therefore, the two should be considered as one department. There are no estimates for the Solicitor General of Canada, except in so far as the estimates of the Department of Justice apply to him.


The Chairman:: I draw to the attention of the hon. member for Hull that the minister was indicating his responsibilities as Attorney General of Canada, and not those of the Solicitor General of Canada. I think the problem in respect to this point was dealt with in an answer to a question put to the Minister of Justice, on orders of the day, by the hon. member for Skeena. It was indicated at that time that these matters of employment, or the cessation of employment, were matters within the jurisdiction of the provinces, for the reasons advanced at that time. I suggest this involves a question of civil rights, and the administration of justice in this regard is a provincial matter.
Therefore I do not believe that the hon. member is entitled to make reference to a case which is entirely within the jurisdiction of a province. The Minister of Justice is concerned with legislation which is introduced in the house, having regard to the bill of rights, and a discussion in that respect would be relevant. A passing reference to the bill of rights by hon. members could therefore be proper, but a discussion of individual cases over which the minister has no control because they come under the administration of
Supply-Justice
justice within provinces, or perhaps involve civil rights under the jurisdiction of the provinces, would not be relevant. I hope, therefore, hon. members will not discuss the details of problems in respect of provincial jurisdiction.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the Minister of Justice for outlining his duties. That probably represents the information which Canadian people have been looking for to understand his duties having regard to the bill of rights.
I should like to ask whether the bill of rights is of any value as it presently stands, or should it now be included as part of our constitution. I suggest that is not what the Prime Minister indicated when he said that the people of Canada should have the right of freedom of speech in this country. The individual to whom I have referred is a girl who took the opportunity, which was also offered to members of parliament, of going to Cuba during the Easter holidays to examine at length the situation there. Upon her return she attended a meeting of the Knights of the Round Table service club and presented her opinion of what she had seen during her visit to that country. She did this in a manner completely divorced from the field in which she was employed, but was fired as a result.
I would think that when the bill of rights mentions freedom of speech, it includes protection against the loss of one's job. While it is true that the actual loss of employment may be a provincial matter and not fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government, yet it is a fact that we have a bill of rights which the Prime Minister and others have stated will give protection for freedom of speech, freedom of association and the other freedoms inherent in our Canadian way of life. That being so, the bill of rights should guarantee these freedoms to all citizens, and certainly one of the easiest ways to prove that it does not exist is when some company, particularly a company under the domination of the United States oil industry, discharges someone for speaking in a manner that is not detrimental to Canada or even to the company for which the individual works but as he saw things, and for expressing his own views publicly.
I had occasion to watch the program "Close-Up" the other night when this matter was discussed. Three well known and well respected business people from the city of Calgary who took part were of the opinion that the things the lady said probably were harsh. She is a woman 26 years of age. Maybe she was harsh in expressing her opinions on an international matter, but there was nothing wrong in what she said. Nothing was

Supply-Justice
contrary to the good and welfare of Canada itself. I, and I think most citizens of Canada, believe that if the bill of rights is for the protection of our people it should not be necessary for this lady to sue or to do any of the other things that are open to her in the provincial field. She should have the protection of a federal act. I suggest that the responsibility for this situation must rest with the attorney general.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Does the hon. member believe that the freedoms enumerated in the bill of rights include the right to work? Is this not the line on which he is speaking?


William Arnold Peters: I believe the right to employment is the right of every person, and that we should have the opportunity to work. I presume the hon. member is referring to the right to work in another context with which, of course, I disagree. I believe in the right to employment, but that is not the right in question at this time. We are discussing only the rights that appear in the bill of rights.
I believe that changes, amendments or qualifications must be made in the act. Some change must take place in the office of the attorney general so that it will function not only in the prosecuting of people under such legislation as the Combines Investigation Act, through charges laid by the R.C.M.P. and in other fields, but it must work also for the protection of the individual in Canada, to give him the protection that we in the House of Commons thought we gave when we passed the bill of rights. If this is not done, if the bill of rights is not giving these freedoms to everyone as a right, not by litigation or by court procedure, then the bill of rights is a hollow mockery and the country might as well know it. It will be up to the people to make the bill of rights a part of our constitution; then it will be administered as the constitution is administered, and the benefits from it will flow automatically to everyone resident in the country.
There are many other cases that I have been interested in where the attorney general's office, in my opinion, has not functioned as it should. Individuals have made decisions with respect to which the attorney general could act on behalf of the Canadian people, without any need for litigation, if he so desired. I should like to refer to one of those cases. This matter has been brought to my attention and I have communicated with the minister with respect to it. I have made some other inquiries. It has to do with the sale
IMr. Peters.]
of merchandise to some people in this country. This merchandise may or may not be as represented. Companies are being set up- the hon. member can keep on shaking his head as long as he wishes; I am quite well aware of the fact that he does not understand this problem or hardly any other problem. I am not a lawyer. I did not pass the bill of rights to make lawyers rich. My vote helped to pass the bill of rights to see that Canadians received justice without having to go to court. If the bill of rights means that lawyers are going to make a fortune out of it, then may I say that was not my intention.
I received a letter from an individual in my riding referring to knitting machines that were being sold there. This is a case where misrepresentation took place. Many machines were sold. The company either folded up immediately or the individuals left town. The merchandise sold to the people was unsatisfactory. Immediately after the contract was signed it was assigned to another agency, which may or may not be a part of the original organization. The negotiable instrument was sold after the delivery was made. This is the situation that results. The people who receive the merchandise will return it because it is unsatisfactory, but they will still be required to pay for the merchandise itself. I would place one case on the record.


Jacques Flynn: Before the hon. member continues I should like him to indicate to me how he relates this problem with the estimates of the Department of Justice. I fail to see any relation it may have. It is a problem of the administration of justice, which comes under property and civil rights, which is within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Unless the hon. member is referring to a federal law or a federal act I fail to see how he can be relevant in discussing this matter.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed I wonder whether I might deal with one matter which I think without question is within the jurisdiction of this department. While it is a question of employee-employer relationships, it is one which comes within the jurisdiction of the federal government and has a relationship with the bill of rights. The case has been well publicized in the newspapers because of the unique situation which existed. Questions have been asked in the house about it, and documents relating to this particular incident have been tabled.
I am referring specifically to what I consider to be an abrogation of that which has been classified in the bill of rights as freedom of association, and specifically to a Mr. Terry Whitfield who was summarily dismissed by

Canadian Marconi Company under a clause in their contract of employment, which is completely contrary to that part of the bill of rights relating to freedom of association.
The Marconi company wrote to Mr. Whitfield with respect to this matter on April 12, 1961, under the signature of Mr. S. M. Finlay-son, the president. I should like to read the relevant part of this letter if I may, Mr. Chairman, to indicate what I mean. It is addressed to Mr. Whitfield, c/o Canadian Marconi Company, R.C.A.F. Station, Great Whale River, Box 6121, Montreal, and reads:
Dear Mr. Whitfield:
Since receipt last week of your letter dated the 27th ultimo I have had an investigation made of the circumstances relating to your employment to which it alludes and am now in a position to reply.
Under the terms of your employment agreement, set out in the letter of November 2, 1960, addressed to you by Mr. R. MacLeod, manager of our special services division, and signed and accepted by you the following day, it was expressly provided:
Then he quotes the section from that particular contract:
Native and Eskimo villages are considered out of bounds and personnel are prohibited from fraternization or association with the native populations except in special circumstances. Infringement of these orders is cause for discharge.


Norman Platt Lambert: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. While this subject may be relevant in another context, I fail to see how a contract of employment can be a subject of discussion under the estimates of the Department of Justice, even though there may be rights under the bill of rights which should be invoked on behalf of the individual. The individual must invoke those rights by an action against his employer. This is a contract of employment. I feel, therefore, that the discussion of this subject is not germane, although it may be in another context. I submit that all this discussion is out of order.


Charles Benjamin Howard: If I may comment on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West, I should like to indicate what the bill of rights says in this respect. I quote section 1, as follows:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely-
Then there is an enumeration of a number of them, and paragraph (e) says:
(e) freedom of assembly and association;
The Minister of Justice was one who participated in the passage of this particular act under which he has certain responsibilities. The act declares that certain conditions have existed, and I merely point out this particular incident as an example of something
Supply-Justice
that is contrary to the provisions in the bill of rights. This incident shows these conditions have not existed and do not exist in respect of Mr. Whitfield and Miss Witalktuk, the young lady to whom he is engaged and whose association with him caused his dismissal.
I submit that it is entirely in order to discuss the subject from the point of view of justice to this individual. If the bill of rights means anything at all, if the minister has any obligation whatever in this regard, certainly it is in order to discuss this obviously callous and arrogant treatment by the Canadian Marconi Company of Mr. Whitfield, which is completely contrary to the provisions of the bill of rights. If we cannot discuss it here, if it is not a question of justice to this individual, where can we discuss it? Perhaps we can discuss it outside the house, as we are able to do on so many occasions when hon. gentlemen opposite object to things being debated here.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member must realize that he is in the House of Commons of Canada and must discuss matters which are within the province of the federal parliament. I suggest that he is not free to discuss matters which come within provincial jurisdiction. He is free to discuss those matters outside of this house.
In so far as the bill of rights is concerned, this bill does not apply to matters within the jurisdiction of the provinces. As I indicated before, the matter of employment involves a civil right which is clearly within the jurisdiction of the provinces, as is the administration of justice. I feel, therefore, that the hon. member cannot really discuss subjects of that kind on the estimates of the Department of Justice. I would not say there would not be other occasions on which the problem of the bill of rights could be discussed in general, but certainly not in the way the hon. member for Skeena is seeking to do and as the hon. member for Timis-kaming sought to do earlier. I rule, therefore, that in the way this discussion has been going up to the moment, it is not relevant.


Alexis Pierre Caron: In order to clarify the situation, Mr. Chairman, may I ask if the Minister of Justice is responsible to the house for the bill of rights?


Jacques Flynn: In relation to those matters indicated in the bill of rights. For instance, when legislation is brought before the house it must be examined by the Minister of Justice in order that he may determine that there is nothing within the legislation contrary to the bill of rights.


Alexis Pierre Caron: There is another question that I should like to put. If a member wants to

Supply-Justice
ask the minister whether there is any possibility of amending the bill of rights, in view of the conflict between provincial and federal rights, would that be within the rules of this house?


Jacques Flynn: I fail to see how the hon. member, by directing a question to the Minister of Justice during the discussion of the departmental estimates, could force the minister to impose any obligation on the provinces to implement the bill of rights within those provinces, or to direct that a provincial bill of rights be enacted. This is certainly not the responsibility of the minister. I think this case is clearly in the same position as the one that has been discussed, which clearly was not the concern of the Minister of Justice. It seems to me that this discussion is clearly irrelevant.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I think there has been a misunderstanding about what we are getting at in this particular case to which I referred, the relationship between Mr. Whitfield and the Canadian Marconi Company and his discharge because of this fraternization clause. I submit the matter is within the jurisdiction of this federal parliament because Mr. Whitfield was working for the Canadian Marconi Company, which company has a contract with the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources for certain activities near Great Whale river. It is this relationship that I was getting at. Here is an individual working for a company-


Jacques Flynn: I understand the point that the hon. member is trying to make. It may be a problem for discussion with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to ascertain what the department can do about a practice like that from an administrative point of view when it gives a contract to a company. However, the employment by Canadian Marconi of any person in the execution of this contract is certainly not a problem that is related in any way to the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General of Canada on these estimates; that is another matter. There may be an administrative problem to discuss with the minister concerned but, as the hon. member has clearly indicated, the employment contract is between a company and an individual and has nothing to do with the Minister of Justice. It is a private matter between the Canadian Marconi Company and the individual in question.


Charles Benjamin Howard: What I was leading into was an attempt to show where the bill of rights is deficient in this regard-the Attorney General of Canada has some responsibility in some fields, even though it is not precisely clear just what they all are-in not providing 
some machinery in the Department of Justice to enable Mr. Whitfield to find some solution to the grievance he has apart from spending all his time and money wandering around the courts attempting to deal with a monopolistic outfit like the Canadian Marconi Company.
This is the matter to which I wanted to direct my remarks, Mr. Chairman. However, if you rule that I cannot do that, I am prevented at this stage anyway from dealing with the specific case of Mr. Whitfield, even though I think other hon. members who have spoken about the case, or have made reference to it slightly, feel that he has a justifiable grievance against the Marconi Company.
Yesterday there was great discussion about the introduction of a bill by way of subterfuge. Perhaps I had better try to find the exact words used. The minister said "because leave to introduce it was obtained by subterfuge". He was dealing then with Bill No. C-76. I think I am quite at liberty to say that we have before the House of Commons, and the Minister of Justice has examined a number of them, bills that have been introduced into the House of Commons by way of subterfuge also, and that he did not decline the opportunity of examining those bills and to pass on them at all. He went wholeheartedly into that effort to meet-


Mr. Speakman:: On a point of order, may I ask the hon. member whether he can be more specific?


Mr. Fulion:: No; because he would be out of order. The Chairman has already ruled that discussion out of order.


Charles Benjamin Howard: We have all sorts of statements from the Minister of Justice on matters for which he has no responsibility. He obviously wants to have the responsibility of being chairman or Speaker.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I just want to get on with my estimates.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am quite sure the minister wants to do that with the least amount of discussion, but that is not the way in which parliament functions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I ask for discussion of the estimates, not all these irrelevancies. That is my only request.


Charles Benjamin Howard: All I can do is follow the lead given by the Minister of Justice when he used to sit on this side of the house. I can see the advantage it brought to him and to his party. I think we are entitled to follow somewhat the same course. However, I should be glad to comply with the request of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin and relate specifically

to him the bills to which I refer. In fact I did that yesterday on two separate occasions and then, as you will recall, Mr. Chairman, we finally appealed a particular ruling to the house and the house decided that I could no longer go into that matter. Therefore I may do it only in an indirect way, although I would enjoy very much accommodating the hon. member for Wetaskiwin.
Last night I inquired of the Minister of Justice about the specific duties that have been assigned to the Solicitor General in so far as his functions within the Department of Justice were concerned and what those were in, for example, the past year. In reply the minister made a general comment about the matter saying in general terms that the Solicitor General was carrying on his affairs, doing extremely valuable work and so on, and he referred me to an answer of the Prime Minister about a year ago which I read into the record or dealt with on a previous occasion.
This statement does not answer the question. The Solicitor General may well be doing valuable work. There is no question about this matter. He may well be a most important and valuable person, as the minister put it, in the cabinet and the government of Canada. But what I should like to know specifically is what the Solicitor General has been doing, if he has some functions or some duties and has been carrying them out within the Department of Justice, surely this committee is entitled to know what those duties are before we proceed to deal with other matters in the Department of Justice.
I know that the Department of Justice is an extensive one. It may well be that there are all sorts of activities in which he engages, such as in the operation of the Parole Act. In passing, and before we get to that item, I should like to pay a tribute to Mr. Street, the chairman of the board, for the fine work being done in this particular field. It may well be that the Solicitor General has had assigned to him some responsibility in the particular field of the operation of the Parole Act. I do not know. It may well be that he has had assigned to him some responsibilities in the field of penitentiaries.
I think the committee should be entitled to have some explanation of this matter before we pass from this item to the other ones. It may well be that he is involved in the field of the Combines Investigation Act or in any of the other items under the Department of Justice. Before we proceed I think the Minister of Justice should explain in the necessary detail the functions of the Solicitor General and what he has been doing within the Department of Justice over the past year.
Supply-Justice
While the minister is at it and is dealing with that matter, he might deal with another one. I notice that last night the hon. member for Port Arthur raised one particular matter as shown at page 5387 of Hansard. Without quoting or reading the words of the hon. member for Port Arthur, I think we can in essence say that he wanted the minister to give some indication to the committee that the lawyers or members of the legal profession who have been retained by the department for certain activities have not been at the same time or previously members or supporters of a certain political party.
I wonder whether the minister would care to deal with those two items before we proceed to pass the first item?


Edmund Davie Fulton: A number of points have been raised this morning. If I may, I will start with the point made by the hon. member for Megantic with regard to an apparent discrepancy between the totals shown in the second column of the blue book for this year as having been the expenditure by the department for 1960-61 and the totals as he arrived at them by adding up what was shown in the main estimates for last year plus various supplementary estimates. As I recall it, he pointed out that the discrepancy between the two totals was something of the order of $800,000 and asked me for an explanation.
The explanation I have is this. In the estimates for last year-that is for 1960-61 -provision for salary revision for all the public service was made in one place, namely in the general salaries vote of the Department of Finance. In other words, the increase in expenditure that resulted from the salary increase which was approved last year, and amounted to many millions of dollars, was last year asked for under one item in the estimates of the Department of Finance.
Of course that would not give the true picture of the expenditures by departments, because the increase for convenience let us say it was in the neighbourhood of $40 million, although I am not saying that it was that amount-would obviously be divided, with so many million dollars to this department and so many million dollars to each of the other departments. When the book of main estimates was made up for this year, in order to reflect what was felt to be a truer picture, the amount of the salary increase attributable to each department was added to the amount shown in the second column in the book so that the amount in the second column in the book this year-that is the amount that is reported to have been spent last year-includes the portion of

Supply-J ustice
the salary increase attributable to the respective departments. But in last year's main and supplementary estimate none of it was shown as attributable to a specific department; it was all lumped in the Department of Finance estimates in a single item. I am told that the difference this year accounts for an amount of $861,004, and I think that is the difference to which the hon. gentleman was directing our attention.
The hon. member for Peace River raised two matters in connection with possible amendments to the Criminal Code. He drew attention to what he considers to be a situation which makes it desirable to amend section 722 of the code. I have to say that it is not our intention to make an amendment to this section this year. The Criminal Code amendment bill is practically ready, and it does not include an amendment which would cover that suggestion. However, we will certainly give it careful consideration for another year.
With respect to the second suggestion the hon. member made, I am glad to be able to say that in our study of this matter we have come to the conclusion that his suggestion is a proper one; that is, that there should be an amendment to the code in connection with offences committed while driving an automobile. I am confident that when my hon. friend sees the Criminal Code amendment bill he will approve of the amendment which we have included in that respect.
There was a considerable amount of discussion on the bill of rights and its application to one or two specific cases which were mentioned. You have ruled, Mr. Chairman, that in as much as it is not the responsibility of the Minister of Justice or Attorney General of Canada to enforce the bill of rights on behalf of individuals, particularly where the right concerned is within provincial jurisdiction, this is not a matter which should be discussed on the estimates of this department.
With that ruling I of course agree, but perhaps, I might, without violating your ruling, Mr. Chairman, refer to one part of the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West, who asked me what is being done to persuade the provinces to take similar action in their fields. This in my view would be the answer which hon. members who have raised these cases are seeking. If the provinces would enact similar bills of rights in their fields of jurisdiction-that is, similar to the bill of rights in the federal field-the whole field of rights and freedoms in Canada would be covered. It seems to me this is a desirable thing and I hope that the case in Calgary may serve as a further incentive, a further spur to citizens in the provinces to

urge upon their governments, and finally urge successfully, that they too should adopt bills of rights which would be effective within the field of provincial jurisdiction.
For the rest, Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that it was carefully explained at the time the bill of rights was before the house that the courts are an integral and essential part of the protection of our rights. All the legislature can do is define the rights and put them in statute form, which is a very effective form, to show that these rights exist and are the legislative entitlement of the Canadian people.
However, it was carefully explained by me in the course of the debate on the bill of rights that the courts were an essential part of the protection of our rights, and that if it was felt these rights may have been violated and should be asserted, protection or restitution should be sought from the courts.
Therefore hon. members should not feel they have been taken by surprise when they find this to be the situation. Of course it would be quite intolerable to take seriously the suggestion hon. members made-I am not relating this to any specific case-that the Minister of Justice or Attorney General of Canada should himself be responsible for deciding when a Canadian citizen's rights had been violated and what should be done to protect them.
I can understand their views when, as they view it, a large and powerful company is at fault here. However, let me ask these hon. members to consider the implications of what they are suggesting. I am quite sure they would resent it very deeply indeed if I made a finding that one of them, for instance, had violated the rights of somebody else and if I brought a prosecution myself and attempted to determine in what respect restitution should be made.
This, of course, is a matter for the courts. It would be an intolerable situation if the Minister of Justice or Attorney General were to accept this invitation and set himself up as an arbiter in cases where he felt a right had been violated. That would be a dictatorship; that is exactly what the bill of rights was designed to protect against, and it is something which this government would never allow, once it brought-


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that the minister is deliberately misconstruing the remarks made from this side of the chamber in order to paint an incorrect picture. While the minister may be trained in the use of words, he is using his position as minister to do this. It is most unkind and most unfair.


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: nonsense.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend does not like to have the logical conclusion of his suggestion drawn to his attention. But that is what I am doing; I am drawing to his attention the logical conclusion of the suggestion he has made and the position that he and the hon. member for Timiskaming have taken in this respect.
The hon. member for Skeena also asked about the responsibilities of the Solicitor General. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I might just finish this subject before one o'clock. I direct the hon. member's attention again to the answer given by the Prime Minister, which was referred to in debate by the hon. member and by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert on May 19, just a week ago.
That, I think, is a complete answer; but to give some more particulars I can of course say that the Solicitor General is individually responsible for the review of all cases where the question of commutation of the death sentence arises. He is in charge of the review of cases generally where the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy is concerned, including the remission of fines and forfeitures, temporary releases from prison for compassionate reasons, applications for ordinary pardons and a number of other matters of that type, the submissions on which are numerous and involve a great deal of careful and very detailed consideration, research and comparison.
In addition to these particular duties, as the Prime Minister pointed out in his answer last week, the Solicitor General undertakes such assignments as may be referred to him as a member of cabinet, and of course he does act as Minister of Justice whenever the Minister of Justice happens to be away. I am not away too frequently, but there are occasions where official business takes me away. For instance, I was with the Prime Minister in London for ten days this year. During the period of negotiation of the Columbia river treaty I was frequently absent because of attendance in Victoria and Washington. On these and similar occasions the Solicitor General acts as Minister of Justice.
Therefore I think my hon. friend can set his mind at rest on the point of whether or not the Solicitor General, by his industry and by the importance of the tasks which he performs, merits the salary which is provided for him.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
Supply-Justice AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Chown):: Shall vote No. 165 carry?


Charles Benjamin Howard: No. At one o'clock the minister was in the process of dealing with some of the questions which have been raised, specifically with one mentioned yesterday by the hon. member for Port Arthur about the hiring of legal talent outside the department, and I think the minister had not concluded.


Mr. Bourque:: On May 20, 1958, I brought up in this house the question of goof balls. At that time I was laughed at and sneered at by everyone-I see one hon. member sneering now-but I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the goof ball problem when I made reference to it then was a serious problem and that today it is a calamity in Canada.
Yesterday my colleague from St. Denis asked the Minister of Justice a question about what the government is doing in connection with this goof ball problem-he called it the barbiturate problem-and the minister replied, saying that while the hon. member was talking the government was acting. As I have just mentioned, I raised this subject in the house on May 20, 1958 and here is the minister saying in 1961, three years later, that the government was acting, that they were not talking. Well, if this is an example of the speed at which this government acts, then God help us poor Canadians. As I said, I brought the matter up in May, 1958, and today the minister tells us three years later, that they are acting. What were they doing in the meantime? They have spent three years doing nothing. For three years they stood idly by watching a problem, which could easily have been settled then, grow to a point where it must be considered as a national problem almost impossible of solution.
When I spoke on goof balls in May, 1958, the then chief of the inspection services of the Department of National Health and Welfare gave an interview to a newspaper saying there was no goof ball problem. He said he did not take seriously the term "goof ball". "I heard that one 30 years ago", he said. I said then that this official of the Department of National Health and Welfare must either have been asleep at the switch or trying to avoid his responsibility. I have here hundreds of clippings and editorials from Canadian newspapers dealing with the seriousness of the goof ball problem and urging that prompt measures be taken to combat it. Yet this official, this man who should have been on the alert, instead of investigating whether

Supply-Justice
what I had said in the house was true, promptly denied my statement, claiming that there was no such thing as a goof ball problem.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether you and whether the hon. member who is speaking would not consider it more appropriate to raise this matter when the bill dealing with this subject, which will stand in the name of my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare is introduced. I am, of course, prepared to accept my responsibility, but it seems to me the hon. member's remarks have made it abundantly clear that he is criticizing another department and, at the moment criticizing an official of another department for whom I am not responsible. I am sure an answer can be made, but I have not got the facts at my disposal to give it. I have no doubt that this discussion would be more appropriate when the legislation is brought down and when the minister who can accept responsibility for it is here, together with his officials.


Gabriel Roberge: On the point of order, if I am not mistaken, my colleague from Outre-mont-St. Jean intends to relate his remarks to a situation prevailing in certain parts of the country where persons using goof balls are becoming involved under the Criminal Code and especially with the traffic in goof balls inside penitentiaries. I think, with respect, that it would therefore be in order for him to continue to discuss this matter.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Further to the point of order, in answering the hon. member for St. Denis, the minister said that next week or within ten days at the latest, the government was going to bring in legislation. I have only the details in French of what he said: (Translation):
-a bill to carry out a narcotics control program, a bill to revise the Criminal Code to deal with dangerous sexual offenders-
(Text):
So, if the minister can announce in the house that a bill is to be brought in to amend the narcotics act, that is in accord with what my hon. friend is saying, namely that goof balls are becoming as dangerous as any other narcotics. The minister has stated that he intends to bring a bill before this house. I suggest this is a serious matter, and that the hon. member is simply trying to suggest to the minister that the bill should be made completely perfect in order to deal with this problem. Therefore, I think the minister should answer that suggestion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I did not say that I would introduce the bill. My colleague,

the Minister of National Health and Welfare, has several times informed this house that he would introduce legislation in respect of both the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, and the Food and Drugs Act, which are the responsibilities of that minister. He will be introducing measures to deal with both problems, and at that time will outline the legislation in full and answer criticisms. I am not in a position to do so, because these acts are not within the administrative responsibility of my department.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, the minister said yesterday that he was going to introduce the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I simply stated that legislation would be introduced to deal with the problem which has been referred to, namely, the problem of goof balls.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The house was informed that-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am inclined to agree to some extent with both statements regarding the point of order raised by the minister. Very wide scope is generally allowed during the debate on the first item of the estimates of a department, and to the extent the hon. member is able to relate his remarks to the administration of justice and the Criminal Code itself, in view of the legislation referred to by the minister which is not yet before this house, I feel he should be allowed to carry on with the discussion of this general topic. However, to the extent that he was moving toward a discussion of another department of government, for which the minister, whose estimates are before this committee, is not responsible, I cannot find that the hon. member was in order. I should ask him to relate his remarks to the general topic of administration of justice and the Criminal Code itself.


Romuald Bourque: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned with the goof ball problem because it has been suggested by police officers, who have dealt with the problem on different occasions, that it is a more serious problem than the narcotic problem. These officers suggested they would sooner deal with a narcotic addict than a goof ball addict. I suggest that, with the passage of the proposed legislation in this respect, the vending of goof balls will be a criminal affair, with which the R.C.M.P. will have to deal. This will then be within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice, and I feel I am entitled, therefore, to refer to it.
Mr. Chairman, at the time I was interrupted, I was suggesting that this serious problem had been brought to the attention of the government.

(Translation):


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
We are now considering the estimates of the Department of Justice and of the judiciary administrative power. Now, the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque) takes it for granted that the very serious problem of goof balls is the responsibility of the Department of Justice. However, in order that there be a relationship between the estimates we have before us and the statement of the hon. member, the problem of goof balls would have to be made an illegal act under the Criminal Code. Unfortunately, no bill has yet been put forward to this end, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) will soon be submitting a measure to the house in that regard. Therefore, I respectfully submit that it is out of order for the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean to go on discussing goof balls or barbiturates.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I think that is precisely the point made by the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque). He hopes that the problem will be settled soon. If the matter of barbiturates or goof balls were covered by the criminal code, and if the enforcement of that legislation, as any federal legislation, were made a responsibility of the R.C.M.P., it could be dealt with rapidly.
As far as I know, there is nothing in the law or in the standing orders which forbids an hon. member from asking the minister to deal with the problem. That is what the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean has been doing, and I feel it would be placing too great a restriction on our discussions if the hon. member were forbidden to ask the minister to place this problem of goof balls or barbiturates on the same footing as narcotics. (Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: I have made my comments in connection with the point of order. I will listen very carefully as the hon. member proceeds and, if I feel he is straying too far from the consideration of the estimates of this department, I will then intercede.


Romuald Bourque: Mr. Chairman, at the point I was interrupted I was in the process of suggesting that the government could very easily have put an end to this illegal traffic some three years ago when the situation was brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice.
The use of goof balls has become a plague which is undermining the youth of our country. This fact was brought to the attention of the Department of Justice some three years
Supply-Justice
ago, and I suggest that department should have taken it into consideration, enacted legislation making it illegal for pushers to sell these goof balls to the youth in our schools and elsewhere. However, at that time the government did nothing in this regard. Now, three years later, the Minister of Justice announces that it is intended that measures be found to combat this serious menace.
I suggest the use of goof balls is the first step toward drug addiction. Boys and girls from 12 to 18 years of age-perfect boys and girls-can become criminals over night through the use of goof balls which they are able to purchase at confectionery stores and ice cream parlours. If a boy or girl consumes a bottle of gingerale, or other similar drink, in which has been placed a goof ball, he or she is quite capable of committing murder or carrying out any other similar terrible crime. Three years ago there were three or four hundred girls and boys who were using goof balls. The government has done nothing to correct this situation, and today I suggest there are thousands of young boys and girls across this country who have fallen far down the social ladder through the use of goof balls. Nothing has been done to prevent men and women from despoiling our youth by selling them goof balls.
Authorities in Montreal have become alarmed by the growth of this goof ball traffic. They have called together scientists, statistical men, doctors, and other learned individuals in an attempt to find out what can be done to eradicate this evil. I understand that representations have been made to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in respect to a meeting to be held in Ottawa to discuss this situation. As long ago as May 20, 1958 I suggested in this house that the confectionery and ice cream parlours where these goof balls were being sold, should be kept under surveillance in an attempt to find out who the pushers were, with the intention of adopting measures to stop these harmful transactions. As I said a moment or two ago, nothing has been done.
I should like to direct hon. members' attention to an article which appeared in Time magazine of March 31, 1958, which I quoted in my remarks in this house on June 27, 1958, as reported at page 1700 of Hansard for that day. This article indicated that a young man, 14 years of age, died in Halifax from an overdose of goof balls which he had taken from the drug store where he was employed as a messenger. When this young man got home that evening his folks found that he acted strangely, as if he were drunk and foolish. Next day he went out for a walk and disappeared. Three weeks later his

Supply-J ustice
body was found in a wooded area near his home. The verdict of the coroner's jury was barbiturate poisoning.
I should also like to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, a small portion of an article entitled "Goof Balls Smuggled Into Prison", which appeared in the Montreal Star on Tuesday, March 25, 1958. In this article it was stated that an investigation had revealed that four dozen goof balls, barbiturate pills, had been smuggled into the prison on Sunday by a visitor. One hour after this visitor had left the prisoners had smashed all the windows, lights and water fixtures in the jail wing of the Joliette court house. If a few goof balls smuggled into a prison or a penitientiary will bring about the devastation that those brought about, namely the smashing of the wing of the jail, then just imagine what a gang of young hoodlums provided with goof balls will do.
I should like to proceed to another matter which I mentioned on August 22, 1958, in my remarks which may be found in Hansard for that day. I want the committee to bear in mind that the year was 1958. I shall have to proceed in French because this article is in French. I hold in my hand a few pages from the magazine Prevention, dated July, 1958. The magazine is published by the police and the fire chiefs of the province of Quebec. It is their official organ.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, there is on that page an article which deals specifically with goof balls. It reads as follows:
Teen agers threatened by the evil of substitutes for drugs.
The article goes on to say:
K.C.M.P. authorities have received over 20 complaints about young people who had been using sedatives or barbiturates, commonly known as goof balls.
And further on:
Complaints of that nature have come from several towns in the province, as well as from many quarters in the Montreal area.
It has been clearly established that young people are getting the habit of using goof balls in their customary meeting places, such as certain colleges and high schools, as well as in dance or community halls.
The article states that goof balls have become a social evil.
"According to an official spokesman of the social welfare court, this evil, which is taking on increasingly alarming proportions, seems to have started among our young people three years ago."
You will note, Mr. Chairman, that already in 1958 it was being said that the evil had existed for three years; and only now are steps being proposed to deal with a problem which has been with us for six years.


Mr. Mariineau:: Would the hon. member allow me a question? For the guidance of this committee, would he tell us when these barbiturates which he calls goof balls were first discovered?


Romuald Bourque: Well, personally, I cannot tell. I am not a druggist and I certainly was not the one who compounded the prescription for goof balls. On the other hand, it was I who called the attention of the house to this evil on May 20, 1958.
Therefore it is not up to me to find out whether the problem has been there for ten or 12 years.
Now, the statement is not mine; it is from an article published in an official publication of the chiefs of police and fire chiefs of the province of Quebec.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask the hon. member a supplementary question?


Romuald Bourque: Certainly.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Seeing that the hon. member has raised this matter several times, it may be reasonably inferred that he is an expert as far as it goes. I should therefore ask him if he has made a special study of it and if he could tell us when the ills he has mentioned have been found to exist in the province of Quebec?


Romuald Bourque: The matter is before the public, and it has been investigated several times by the Montreal police, I have here hundreds of clippings dated from 1958 to 1960 and 1961.
The hon. member must be blind not to have read on the matter in the newspapers, because scores of articles were published about it in almost all the Canadian papers. Some appeared in Weekend and some in La Patrie du dimanche. Some can be found in every newspaper, Mr. Chairman, and not only short reports but feature articles covering full pages.
Consequently there is no need to go into the background of the matter. That the evil exists is common knowledge. It is an affliction, a cancer feeding on society and the government has not done a thing to stop it.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have heard the hon. member say so several times. I take the liberty of asking him questions again. Did he ever say in this house that the problem did not exist before 1958? That is what I would like to know.


Romuald Bourque: All I can say to the hon. member is that the problem came to my knowledge in 1958 and I immediately brought it to the attention of this house.

That is why I say that the government did not do a thing to remove this calamity.
I am still quoting, Mr. Chairman. Prevention is the official publication of the Quebec chiefs of police and firemen's association who, no doubt, must know their business. Therefore this publication must know what it is all about, for all those people are interested in eliminating this problem.
Besides, it is in the light of that social evil, which is a fearful threat to the physical and the moral health of our young people that the federal minister of health took proceedings against some 25 Montreal druggists who had sold "sedatives" or tranquilizers to teen agers without a prescription
Therefore, at that date, the federal minister was aware of existing difficulties. There were difficulties in July 1958, since there were 25 prosecutions against Montreal druggists. I quote again:
Similar proceedings were taken against druggists in Quebec, Shawinigan, Grand'Mere, Three Rivers, Valleyfield and a few other towns in the province All were found guilty and fined.
Therefore the government cannot say that the problem was inexistent. It was very real. They even took proceedings. Further on, the text says this about St. Vincent de Paul:
Just a few days ago, two wardens of the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary were dismissed for introducing goof balls into that institution for distribution among the prisoners.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what conditions were before. It was only then that I learned about this business of goof balls.
Authorities tell us that in the last two years, the number of juveniles using such tranquilizers has risen from 40 per cent to 250 per cent in certain areas.
This percentage may now have gone up to 2,500 or 15,000 per cent, I would not know.
Every day we read press reports of criminal action by juveniles under the influence of goof balls.
Inspector Ovila Pelletier-
He is now deceased.
-chief of the youth assistance squad of the Montreal police, tells us that the problem is the most serious one he has to face at this time.
Later on we learnt, which is another proof that the federal Department of Justice knew about the matter, that, after action had been taken against a number of druggists:
The federal department of health and welfare has been congratulated on its gesture by various social agencies, by the authorities of the welfare court, various youth agencies and other organizations, because they considered the problem such a serious one.


Rémi Paul: On a point of order.
The last remarks of the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean consisted of information
Supply-Justice
received following certain court proceedings by the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Now, for the last five or ten minutes, the hon. member has been speaking on a matter which is not under the jurisdiction of the department of the Minister of Justice, whose estimates we are now discussing.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean not to stray from the matter being discussed.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the question-
(Text):
May I be permitted to say a word about the question?


Gordon Campbell Chown: I have heard the point of order raised, and I confess to being very lenient, but this is a general principle we follow in connection with item 1 of departmental estimates. The fact of the matter is, however, that the prosecutions and so on to which reference has been made have been conducted under acts which are the administrative responsibility of the Department of National Health and Welfare. In any case, I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired, so this provides a good opportunity to intercede.


Mr. Deschatelets:: No doubt leave could be obtained for the hon. member to continue. A certain amount of latitude has been granted to other members, and I presume the minister would not disagree with my suggestion.


Gordon Campbell Chown: This is not the usual practice followed. The first speaker on departmental estimates is normally allowed an extension of time, and I do not think it would be right or proper to break the precedent. The hon. member will have another opportunity to participate in the debate if he wishes.


Charles Benjamin Howard: May I speak to the point of order? Surely, it is not the responsibility of the chairman to interpret the feelings of the committee in so far as the granting of additional time is concerned. This is something that requires unanimous consent. If unanimous consent is not given, then no extension of time is allowed. I do not believe it is the responsibility of the Chair to interpret what might be the attitude of the committee.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I was
only pointing out what the practice of the committee normally is. I was not making any ruling. If the question is put to me, I will put it to the committee. Has the hon. member unanimous consent of the committee to continue?

Supply-Justice


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gabriel Roberge: I want to say just a few words on this question of goof balls. I should like to refer the Chair to an article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of March 8, 1961, under the heading, "Brief to Fulton; Police Want Laws Changed". This article refers to seven recommendations with which I shall not deal in detail. However, recommendation No. 4 reads:
Inclusion under the vagrancy section of unemployed drug addicts who do not have a doctor's certificate declaring them unable to work.
At this time. I wish to ask the minister to study the matter to ascertain if it is feasible to include in the amendments which will be introduced to the Criminal Code a section in the vagrancy provision that will take care of drug addicts and so on.


Mr. Fisher:: Last night, Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity of reading some words of one of the admirers of the minister. I am going to take advantage of the opportunity today to read another account in praise of the minister in order to give me another point from which to ask him a question or two. This is from a great admirer of the minister, Pat Nicholson, who puts out an Ottawa report for the Thomson papers. The heading in the Port Arthur newspaper of May 23 is, "Give High Rating For Davie Fulton".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am only going to read a couple of paragraphs which I know will delight the minister and his backers. I am glad to see them here today. The article reads in part:
Thousands of words have flowed over his lips since that cold December day, only 4] years ago, when British Columbia's own Davie Fulton challenged John Diefenbaker for the leadership of the Conservative party.
But those words, unlike water flowing downstream to the sea, have not been lost. Dammed behind some personal wall of determination, they have gently but surely accumulated into a powerhouse of countrywide good will and respect for their speaker.
I know his colleagues in the committee will forgive me for leaving out a few paragraphs that are along the same general lines, but then we get down to this:
Davie Fulton without question possesses the finest intellect in the cabinet today. For pure mental training and intellectual stature, he has no equal.
Then, I go on to this particular paragraph:
He is, ex officio, the minister in charge of the R.C.M.P. In this role, he has had pleasant and unpleasant duties to perform, gaining the most headlines, perhaps, by his action in refusing to send R.C.M.P. reinforcements to Newfoundland
[The Acting Chairman.]
when requested to do so by Liberal Premier Joey Smallwood who sought their aid in the labour dispute in that province.
Just as an aside, I should like to congratulate the minister on the strong fight he must have put up in the cabinet in order to obtain support for not sending police into Newfoundland.
Going on in the article, we come to this phrase. Mr. Nicholson suggests the minister could have been a hero if he had gone to British Columbia and taken over the leadership of the Conservative party there but, as the author says:
-he chose to remain in Ottawa, from which strategic centre he breaks out to deliver good fighting speeches to public audiences, campaigning for his government and for his own future, showing that he can call on wit, derision, learning, common sense, farsightedness and rhetoric to uplift and persuade his audience.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this article sets out, perhaps properly and perhaps accurately, an estimate of the minister's worth. I certainly am not going to gainsay or deny this. But in view of this breadth and ability that the minister seems to have, I want to turn to one small point and ask him whether he has considered looking at the operations of other departmental offices or ministerial offices as a basis of comparison in order to see whether perhaps it has developed that, because of his general brilliance in an over-all way, he has not looked at the little details of his own department in order to see how things go through his office.
I do not have much contact with the minister but I am always astounded at how long it takes to get a reply from his office. If you get one in three weeks, I think you are doing very well. Not long ago I pointed out to the minister that a man in Sault Ste. Marie had written to him complaining that the R.C.M.P. had broken into his home and had messed things up. The minister has satisfied him and I suppose other people that the R.C.M.P. were not the ones involved. But the point is that six weeks after the man had written to the minister he had received no reply from the minister's office. I do not care whether he is the worst and lowest thug in Canada, any person who writes to the minister surely deserves a more prompt reply than that. I am not going to speak for other members but from conversations I have had with others I know that they report that same pattern in so far as this department is concerned. It takes much more than the ordinary length of time to get any kind of response to a request either by phone or by letter.
I am just wondering whether the minister would not check into this phase of his operations. It would be dreadful if we had his

continued build up on lines that Mr. Nicholson has set forth and yet right within his own office there were a situation in which the satisfaction that perhaps might be deserved, was not being given by him or his personnel. I might appear to be flippant in bringing this matter before the committee. However, I would suggest to the minister that it would be a worth while thing upon which to check. If you write to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of National Revenue or the Postmaster General you get a reply in from three to five days or someone contacts you in the office. But in this department with this brilliant head you wait and wait. This is just a minor detail of administration but I thought it would be worth while to bring it to the minister's attention. I know that he would like to live up to-and perhaps he does so- all these elaborate assessments that have been given by such astute observers as Mr. Nicholson.
The hon. member for Skeena somewhat misinterpreted the question that I had asked the minister yesterday and to which I did not receive a reply. The hon. member for Skeena wanted to know whether with regard to these legal jobs or legal fees the minister would make a statement to the effect that they had not been given to Conservative party members. What I really was seeking was an assurance that they had been given to supporters or members of the Conservative party. But much more important than that, I wonder whether the minister would give us some information on the matter I raised in relation to amending procedure in connection with the British North America Act.
He will recall that at the dominion-provincial conference in July last year, at one of the afternoon sessions the Prime Minister made this matter one of the central points and stressed very strongly that the procedure to amend the constitution was one of the most vital things ahead of the nation as a whole. Subsequently, there were a number of meetings which received a considerable amount of publicity and last night I suggested that some of these left a very vague impression as to what was happening and what were the difficulties. Before the minister leaves this part of his estimates I should like him to bring us up to date on that matter.
The last point that comes to my mind results from the minister's explanation of the difficulty with the bill of rights. He pointed out that if he was expected as attorney general or Minister of Justice to take up every case in which someone felt that someone was infringing or impinging upon his rights, he would be involved in extremely great difficulty. I wonder whether the minister or
Supply-Justice
the government has given any consideration to a practice that has been developed in other parts of the western world and has received a certain amount of critical acclaim from journalists, academic people and even editorial writers. I refer to the idea of an office similar to that of ombudsman that has been worked out in several of the Scandinavian countries where there is an office created by the government but separate from it to which anyone can take any appeal for any injustice that he feels he has suffered through legislation or impingement of government activities.
I realize that a federal government can properly deal only with things that fall within the federal framework. But when we have so much delegated authority as we have today, it seems to me that this procedure becomes more and more a worth while possibility. I wonder whether the minister has given any consideration to the matter, whether this has been a subject of discussion with the executive of this government, whether he has had any memoranda prepared on it or whether anyone in the government has studied how it works in other parts of the world.
The last point upon which I wish to touch under this item is the question of where the minister stands in connection with appointing justices in relation to the article or editorial in the Montreal Gazette from which I quoted last night which indicated that this government had a marvellous chance to follow the line indicated by the Prime Minister when he was in office, namely to make the prime factor in appointing a justice his merit or ability rather than his political colour. I wanted to ask the minister where this particular government stands in this regard.


Mr. Carter:: I wish to rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I merely want to correct a statement which the hon. member for Port Arthur put on the record, I am sure inadvertently. Obviously referring to an incident that took place a couple of years ago, the hon. member for Port Arthur referred to a request that had come from Premier Smallwood for R.C.M.P. reinforcements. The fact is that the request did not come from Premier Smallwood. It came from the commanding officer of the R.C.M.P. and was transmitted to the minister through the attorney general's office, in accordance with the procedure laid down for a request of this type. The hon. member's remarks gave the impression that the request had originated with the premier of Newfoundland whereas it originated with the R.C.M.P.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Speaking to the point of order, may I say that I did not say that. I was referring to Mr. Nicholson, one of the fearless members of the press gallery. This was

Supply-J ustice
his interpretation. My whole point in reading this article was not to raise this problem but rather to underline the valiant stand taken by the minister probably within the cabinet to make sure that the mounted police did not go to Newfoundland.


William Hector McMillan: Like some other departments in the government, the Department of Justice has certain small statutory expenditures presumably to pay pensions to widows or to deceased employees. These expenditures are not discussed under any estimates. I want to ask the Minister of Justice by what authority this fund was set up covering statutory expenditures. I always presumed it was by reason of an order in council.
I notice one item in the estimates of the Department of Justice for an amount of $2,400. This $2,400 is to pay annual pensions to three widows in respect of their husbands who lost their lives in the performance of their duties.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. member to which item he is referring? I have not located it and I wonder whether the hon. member could give me the item number.


William Hector McMillan: It follows item 177 and appears to be a special item under the heading "Pensions and other Benefits."


Edmund Davie Fulton: Thank you.


William Hector McMillan: Two of these widows receive an annual pension of $900 each and the third widow receives an annual pension of $600. I do not know when these pensions were determined or how long they have been paid to these particular widows. They seem small in relation to the increased cost of living and increased pensions. I wonder whether the word "pension" is a misnomer.
I have been in parliament for 11 years and these pensions never seem to increase. They always remain the same, and I do not think things are the same today as they were before. I should like to have the minister's comment on these particular pensions. I think the committee will find a number of such pensions in other departments of the government.


Romuald Bourque: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying a short time ago, on May 20, 1958, I asked that cases made against pushers or drug addicts using goof balls be changed from the Department of National Health and Welfare and placed under the Criminal Code or some other law so that the R.C.M.P. could act under it, take these people in and prevent further distribution if possible.
All hon. members can see this article. "Goof balls" is big enough there for anybody

to see; it occupies almost half a page. This is La Patrie du Dimanche of February 19, 1961 and the title of the article is:
(Translation):
Alarming situation
Goof balls available to high school students.
(Text):
That is, "Goof balls on the road of scholars". The article has five by-lines, but I will only read one because it is a very lengthy article:
(Translation):
Doctor and two nurses assaulted by patient, 15, in Notre Dame hospital.
Within a few days, riots in Montreal jail and St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary.
Woman murdered on St. Lawrence blvd., her assaillant hardly aware of what he was doing.
Within a few months, four in morgue due to poisoning.
Damage by goof balls, which represent an increasingly complex problem for justice and are the main enemy of order and public rest.
Those, Mr. Chairman, are five subheadings which reveal the damage wrought by goof balls and are evidence of the fact that those crimes were committed under the effect of goof balls.
(Text):


Mr. Hicks:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether 1 could ask the hon. member a question. Would the hon. member please define "goof ball" for me? I do not know what it is. Will the hon. member tell me exactly what is in it and how it works?


Romuald Bourque: I am not a druggist and 1 cannot tell the hon. member what it contains. The users purchase these goof balls from druggists, I presume, or obtain them through some other channel.


William Harold Hicks: But I would like to know what it is. What is it? Is it made up of bread and butter, or castor oil, or Epsom salts, or what is it? What is in it?


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman. I wonder whether the answer to that question could perhaps be given by my hon. friend's colleague who was applauding so loudly a moment ago and who is a member of the medical profession.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, does this not demonstrate pretty clearly that this question should be discussed under the estimates of the department of my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who will have the officials here who can give us all this information?


Romuald Bourque: The minister-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order.


Romuald Bourque: The Minister of Justice-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order; I am already on my feet. I am inclined to the view I have already given to the committee. To some extent the hon. member was touching on the Department of Justice at various times and that was the reason why I permitted him to continue. But this is really a discussion of a social problem and it is the direct administrative responsibility of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
The hon. member will have an opportunity to present his case when the estimates of that department are before the committee. To the extent to which the hon. member is referring to the importation of drugs or trafficking in narcotics over the border, or bringing them in from other countries as was discussed by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, I think it was, yesterday, this would appear to be applicable to the discussion.
Therefore I would ask the hon. member to limit his remarks to matters which are the direct administrative responsibility of the minister. With regard to that portion of his remarks which concern the responsibility of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the hon. member can deal with that matter at a later date.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I submit with respect that if we took up this matter on the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, it would be out of order.
Let me explain that in our view, the situation created by the use of goof balls is so alarming that it constitutes a problem for the Minister of Justice. We are seeking amendments to the Criminal Code to place barbituates on the same footing as drugs and put them under the same control of the R.C.M.P. In making this request, we find it necessary, to bolster our arguments-and I feel the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean is completely in order-to establish the seriousness and dire social consequences resulting from the use of those barbiturates at the present time.
Therefore, I think the minister should tell us whether he soon proposes to bring forward amendments to the Criminal Code in an effort to stop the damage caused by this serious problem.
(Text):


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, you have referred to the question of relevancy and I think there is also the question of repetition to be considered at this stage.
Supply-Justice
The hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean has pointed out the situation and now he persists in repeating the same thing in all sorts of colours and guises. He is not really adding anything to what his colleagues, the hon. member for Megantic and others, have already said. His colleagues have said the same thing, and I think that on the point of repetition the hon. member should be ruled out of order, as well as on the question of his remarks not being relevant to the matter under discussion.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, some time ago, a question was directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare about the review which could be made to solve the problem of the use of barbiturates, known as "goof balls".
At the time, the minister said he was considering the matter in co-operation with the authorities of the Department of Justice. Therefore, it is impossible to solve that problem without the co-operation of both departments.
I did not have time to read the page of Hansard where the matter is recorded, but I have a good memory and I recall what the minister said. He stated that the authorities of the Department of Justice had to be consulted to introduce legislation. Therefore, they are closely related in this matter. Furthermore, he cannot deny that the Department of Justice has some interest in the matter. Now, the hon. member is specifically asking the Minister of Justice to see to it that the matter be placed under the Criminal Code, in order that the R.C.M.P. may intervene in the matter, like in the matter of any other barbiturate. Consequently, I submit that the hon. member is not out of order.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, I must say that the situation should first of all be cleared and that no member in this house considers the seriousness of the goof ball problem. But when the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont states that the Minister of Justice is the person qualified to hear the grievances of this house, I do not think that we can share his views because the use of goof balls cannot be considered as an unlawful action punishable under the Criminal Code before any legal definition is given of what goof balls are.


Azellus Denis: Then, let him do it.


Rémi Paul: The hon. member for St. Denis says; Let him do it. Any amendment to the food and drugs act must be introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.

Supply-J ustice
When the Minister of National Health and Welfare has stated that barbiturates or goof-balls are drugs, the Criminal Code will then be amended accordingly and a provision to this effect will be included therein. Then, from the moment on, all transactions, sales or use of goof balls will constitute a crime and the Minister of Justice will have the authority to reply to the arguments raised by the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean.
For the time being, we respectfully submit that the hon. member has no right to deal with goof balls.
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder if I could help to dispose of the point of order in a helpful manner and, indeed, dispose of the discussion as well by pointing out that as I understand the case of those who support the right of hon. members to speak about goof balls, it is that they were urging that we should place them under the provisions of the Criminal Code in the same way, one of them said, as narcotics presently are. May I point out that this is an entirely erroneous approach. Narcotics are not under the Criminal Code. There is a separate act-the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act-which is administered by my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is responsible for dealing with discussions concerning that measure. With regard to goof balls, I have referred repeatedly to what my colleague has said, namely, that he intends to introduce legislation to amend the Food and Drugs Act so as to deal with goof balls. That, again, will not be an amendment to the Criminal Code, and the responsibility of introducing and administering that act will be that of my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Because this question does not come under my administrative responsibility I have no officials here who can advise me. It is, in my submission, irrelevant to my department. Perhaps if hon. members would understand and appreciate the point that we are introducing legislation in the form of an amendment to the Food and Drugs Act, and that the question was never then, nor is it now, one of my administrative responsibilities, they will understand why I have endeavoured to point out, reasonably, I hope, that this is not a matter upon which I can be helpful. However, they can obtain all the information they feel they should have if they will wait until the appropriate time.
In connection with the length of time which has elapsed before bringing down legislation, I know that some hon. members are concerned about that, but we have been concerned about it, too. It is, of course, easy

to assume an expert knowledge, but I can assure hon. members opposite that expert knowledge on the subject is not easy to come by and when you are dealing with a drug which, when properly used, is a legitimate aid to medicine you do not lightly pass laws outlawing it and making its possession illegal. This question must be approached on the basis of knowing that the measures taken are appropriate ones, that they are acceptable and that they will be enforceable. I know this has been one of the problems of my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I can assure hon. members it is not a case of simply writing an act and producing it within a month or two. There is more to be done in connection with this problem than might appear on the surface. However, my hon. friend has been working on this matter in conjunction with other departments that are in a position to advise him and his officials, and is now in a position to introduce legislation into this house next week if not earlier. At that time the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean and others interested can get the fullest explanation, the fullest accounting of how the legislation will work. I am sorry, but I am unable to advise them on that point, with the best will in the world. So I suggest again that having had a fairly full reference made to this problem it might be considered appropriate to leave it either until the estimates of the other department are discussed or until the bill itself is introduced.
May I take advantage of this occasion to reply to some of the questions which have been asked on other subjects since I last rose to reply. The hon. member for Port Arthur praised me with one hand and damned me with the other. There is no objection to that on my part. I do recall that I had occasion once to admit to him that there had been delay in sending a reply to a letter, and I explained to him then some of the circumstances accounting for the delay. It was due to my absence at the moment when the reply was being prepared, and again after it had been prepared.
I was not aware there was a general feeling that correspondence from my office was slow. I will certainly look into that question and do what I can to remedy any defects. It may be that one reason why, in some cases, some extra time is taken to answer letters is that many deal with problems of a legal nature to which a swift reply cannot readily be given. It is one thing to send replies on subjects which deal with statistics, where all that is needed is to look up the record on the basis of the actual figures, and altogether another to deal with the great majority of

the communications which I receive, in connection with which time and care are necessary in order to prepare a suitable answer.
Another reason which may account tor some delay is that I have made a rule, perhaps erroneously, that I should answer every letter which comes to my office. I am not referring to letters directed to the department. But when somebody writes to me, whether it is a member of parliament or somebody outside the house, I do like to send a reply. This is the general rule, and I have laid it down because I feel that people who write to a minister are entitled to an answer signed by the minister. I do not say this is done in every case, but it is my general approach. I must confess that on occasions this has had the result that there is more correspondence for my signature than I am able to keep up with, especially on occasions when I have been absent from Ottawa for fairly lengthy periods. I think perhaps I may have to modify that approach to see that interim acknowledgement goes out, signed by someone else. I shall have to look at the situation to see what can be done to remedy this dissatisfaction. My approach has been that every letter addressed to me is entitled to a reply from me, and I have always felt the reply should be carefully considered. For that reason, as well as the others which I have given, I should not deny that I may on occasion have been rather more behind with my correspondence than perhaps I should have been.
A further question was raised regarding the appointment of agents of the Minister of Justice and judges. I am not sure which point of view the hon. member for Port Arthur takes in respect of the appointment of agents-lawyers to act for or on behalf of judges. That hon. member has expressed a different approach today from that which I understood him to take yesterday. May I assure him, as well as other hon. members of this committee, that the criterion which is followed is, that agents of the Minister of Justice must be the most competent and proper persons in the field to represent the Minister of Justice in the carriage of litigation on behalf of the crown and the government of Canada. I have received criticism on occasion in that these persons, who were appointed as agents, have not always and inevitably been individuals who have been associated with me in a political way. I have not received very many criticisms of this kind, but I have received some.
In respect of the appointment of judges, we follow the same standard, in that a very high calibre must be secured in respect of each appointment to the bench. I have not
Supply-J ustice
made a statistical examination, or even attempted to make an analysis, of what may be the affiliation of those individuals we have appointed, because we attempt to avoid the influence of that factor upon our decisions. We try to obtain the best men available.
I can refer to one individual we elevated to the Supreme Court of Canada, who was a judge appointed to the Ontario bench by our predecessors. I am sure if I made an analysis I should find other similar cases. However, our approach has always been that members appointed to the bench must be the best men available for the job. That is the only criterion that we follow.
The hon. member for Port Arthur raised the question regarding the appointment of some one equivalent to an ombudsman in the Scandinavian countries, to carry out his functions in respect of our bill of rights. We did consider this matter very thoroughly, both at the time the bill of rights was being prepared and presented to the house, and since. While not rejecting the suggestion in principle, we felt that it is not capable of direct application to Canada, which is a country with a federal system. Outsiders may feel there is rather an anomalous situation in Canada, in that the criminal law is enacted by the federal parliament while its enforcement and administration are matters of provincial responsibility. The type of complaints with which I understand the ombudsman deals in Scandinavian countries are closely connected with the enforcement of criminal law, and it seemed to us it would not be an acceptable situation, in view of the provincial enforcement of criminal law, to have an individual, who fancied himself aggrieved, appealing to the federal government through an ombudsman, because of their complaint against the enforcement of the law by the provinces, which are responsible for that enforcement. I recognize, however, that an ombudsman is not confined to matters of criminal law, and that the suggestion is made that such an individual might also be useful in the function of reviewing administrative procedures of the federal government itself, in the enforcement of statutes which are the responsibility of the federal government. We have considered this suggestion but have felt, to the present time at any rate, that there is no indication that we cannot produce an equally satisfactory result, through a very careful check by the minister and the Department of Justice of legislation which is introduced, and a readiness to review any complaints which may be made with respect to actions of other departments. It is appreciated, of course, that I cannot direct other departments or veto their actions. We have had a number of cases of complaints being made

Supply-J ustice
regarding other departments, at which time I have discussed these complaints with my colleagues on the basis of there being no objection to my discussing it with them, with the intention of reviewing and examining the complaint to see if there is anything involved which is contrary to the spirit as well as the letter of the bill of rights. In a number of cases we have made very extensive reviews of the activities of other departments on that basis.
It must always be borne in mind that the Minister of Justice cannot dictate in these matters. However, we have had no indication, as yet, that there is any serious gap as a result of this system which would necessitate the appointment of anyone in the nature of an ombudsman in this country. For those two reasons-the peculiarities of the federal system, and the fact that we have taken pains to review our own activities, as a government-I suggest that, as yet at any rate, we are not satisfied that there is any need for such an appointment.
The hon. member for Welland asked me about the authority for a statutory item appearing at the bottom of page 36, which provides $2,400 for pensions to dependents of penitentiary personnel, who lost their lives in the performance of their duty. In the first case there was a statute of 1914 which authorized the payment of an allowance of $500 to a Mrs. Jointson, the widow of an officer employed at the British Columbia penitentiary. This amount was increased by $400 in the main estimates of 1959-60, so that it was only last year that Mrs. Jointson's annual pension was increased from $500 to $900.
The second case involved a widow of another guard employed at the British Columbia penitentiary, and by an item appearing in the estimates, which was incorporated under the Appropriation Acts in 1927, this lady was granted an annual allowance of $600 commencing April 1, 1937. Last year we increased that amount by $300, making a total of $900, to continue during her natural life.
The third case was in respect to the widow of a guard employed at the Kingston penitentiary who was killed in 1926. Under the same authority in 1927 his widow was granted an allowance of $600 per annum. That amount has not been increased.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean, who assures me his remarks will be brief, I should like to place on the record my concurrence in the remarks made by the Minister of Justice regarding the point of order. Therefore, I

should ask the hon. member to give his cooperation to the Chair, in the light of my concurrence in those remarks, by confining himself to a consideration of the estimates of this department as nearly as he possibly can.


Romuald Bourque: I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman. You have not given your ruling on the point of order. I was directing my remarks toward having this matter brought under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice instead of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. At the bottom of page 4487 of Hansard I had this to say in French:
(Translation):
I quote the Hon. W. Monteith, Minister of National Health and Welfare:
Mr. Speaker, I have been investigating this situation for some months in co-operation with my colleague, the Minister of Justice.
(Text):
Therefore, it was being studied by both departments. If I cannot bring the matter up now I do not know when I shall be able to bring it up. This seems to nje to be the proper time. I still believe I was in order until an hon. member across the chamber asked me the question, what are goof balls? He will find the answer at page 8 of the translation section of Hansard of May 25, 1961. The definition is given there.
Before I take my seat I should like to say that I sympathize with the Minister of Justice. I realize he is going to have a very difficult problem to handle because he will have to stop the sale of certain drugs. This may bring about a hardship on certain classes of society but since we are faced with a problem which must be dealt with we cannot delay and let it go on any longer. Therefore, I ask the minister whether he will not give this matter every possible consideration so that the proper measures will be taken to protect our youth in the future and goof balls not be available to them at any time.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The remarks of the Minister of Justice having to do with the implementation of legal justice are commendable. As I understood him, he obtains the services of the most competent lawyers in order to see that cases handled by the crown are handled in the best possible way.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Within the requirements of the case. I did not mean to say that we always go to the man at the very top of the profession because that is not necessary in every case we have.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I understood the minister to say the most competent, I accepted that as meaning that the department selected a competent person. That is the sense in which

I am accepting it. So far as prosecutions under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act are concerned, it seems that the most competent lawyers or firms of lawyers are Conservatives. This may be coincidental. It appears also that none of the lawyers or firms of lawyers who were retained for prosecutions prior to the minister's party taking office are now considered to be competent. Coincidentally again, these firms and lawyers are Liberals. This is shown conclusively. I think it is pretty well acknowledged that the change in government resulted in a change in the retention of certain lawyers and law firms in this country in the prosecution of narcotic offences. The change in government resulted in the dropping of the law firms and lawyers who were Liberals and who had been retained by the Liberal government when it was in office. Substituted for those lawyers and law firms has been a group of firms and lawyers who are Conservatively oriented, and I mean Conservative with a large "C". From the remarks of the minister I would say that this is purely coincidental. I will not bother to put the details of this on Hansard; I do not think it is necessary, Mr. Chairman. I submitted a question to the ministry about this and it bears the date January 17, 1961. My question had to do with the fees and remuneration paid to legal counsel for activities in prosecutions under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, the names and rates, the amounts paid to each individual, and so forth. It is rather an extensive list. One has merely to look casually at it to see the coincidental situation which has existed and which started when this government took office.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will be quite frank and say that we do not exclude from the list of those qualified those who happen to be our own friends.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am sorry; I did not catch that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will be quite frank and say that we do not exclude from those who are qualified those who happen also to be our friends.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I agree with that. It was put quite clearly on the record the other day by the Associate Minister of National Defence. I did not for a moment assume that there was this sort of division in the cabinet. I realize there may be divisions on other matters but certainly not when it comes to rewarding one's friends. I am sure this situation still prevails. I take it it is not coincidental that they all happen to be Conservative. Perhaps there is a bit more to it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know what some of them are.
Supply-Justice


Charles Benjamin Howard: Before the committee took recess at one o'clock I had raised a question regarding the relationship between a Mr. Whitfield and the Canadian Marconi Company as it was affected by the bills of rights. In replying at that time the minister proceeded to draw what he called a logical conclusion from my remarks, and then proceeded to say that it was the advancement of an idea leading to dictatorship in granting arbitrary powers to the minister. Of course, this is not what I was suggesting at all. Further, I would say that when it comes to this government introducing legislation in this house, albeit prior to the time that the bill of rights was introduced, which is contrary to the bill of rights and which in fact places dictatorial powers in the hands of certain individuals and which in fact eliminates in one sense the operation of the courts as an integral part of our legal processes, hon. members will find this in the Feeds Act, being chapter 14 of the 1960 statutes. I merely bring this instance to the attention of the committee because this act contains sections which grossly violate the bill of rights and which, in my opinion, should be dealt with in somewhat the same manner as the Fisheries Act was dealt with. In other words, there should be a revision of this act to repeal those particular sections so that the bill of rights may really mean something.
Section 8 of the Feeds Act, Mr. Chairman, gives authority to an inspector to seize articles by means of or in relation to which he reasonably believes that a violation has been committed either against the act or the regulations. This is an arbitrary power, a dictatorial authority given to an inspector appointed under the Feeds Act to deprive an individual, contrary to the bill of rights, of his right to property and without due process of law. Presumably the word "reasonable" refers to reasonable grounds in the mind of the inspector, who reasonably believes that the Feeds Act or the regulations have been violated.
In addition, he reasonably believes that the property so confiscated or so seized was used to commit the offence. The act further provides that the inspector may release this property after a period of six months if a charge has not been laid. Here we find authority given by this government, and endorsed by this parliament, to a civil servant to deprive a person of property contrary to the bill of rights, and completely at variance with the minister's statement relating to the growing need to have the courts function as an integral part of our judicial system. The act further provides that if litigation is entered

Supply-J ustice
into the goods so seized may be forfeited to the crown in addition to any other sort of fine or penalty imposed by the courts if the individual is found guilty.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is not in keeping with our good sense in attempting to discuss these things on an impartial basis for the minister to draw logical conclusions from the remarks of one member, and then extend those logical conclusions to include a charge of advancing a dictatorial type of system. I think those remarks are completely unfair, unjustified and are not what the minister, upon reflection, would call logical conclusions. In any event, even if he does consider they are logical conclusions, then we must come to another logical conclusion, namely, that this government does believe there are cases in which it is permissible to have the bill of rights violated by a statute of this parliament, a statute which was introduced by a colleague of the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Agriculture. The Feeds Act introduced by this government does violate the bill of rights in that it permits an individual to be deprived of property without due process of law, unless one extends the term "due process of law" to include dictatorial powers given by statute to an inspector. The act permits the minister to deprive an individual of his property for a period of six months without even getting around to laying a charge, and then to give that property back. The property may be of a perishable nature. It may be grain or it may be property which the farmer, for the sake of argument, needs in the conduct of his particular business, such as a truck or motor vehicle or some farm implement that he cannot use and which depreciates with the passage of time. I feel that this act also, to some extent, deprives an individual of the right to a fair hearing.
Another section of the Feeds Act provides that in a criminal prosecution-this is section 10 (2),-it is merely sufficient for the crown to prove the offence was committed by an employee or agent of the person accused, whether or not the employee or agent is identified or whether or not the employee or agent is actually prosecuted for the offence. In this instance we are talking about a function of the Attorney General of Canada, and we have finally found a case in which he is obligated to take some action. In this case the individual charged is being deprived of the right to a fair hearing because he has not had the opportunity of confronting the employee or agent or witness against him, nor has he had the opportunity to crossexamine the witness against him.
In this case we have action on the part of the government in introducing a bill, endorsed

by the cabinet, at exactly the same time as the cabinet was considering and endorsing the bill of rights at the last session and which is indicative of an effort on the part of the government to operate in two different ways. On the one hand, the government is trying to say we will have a bill of rights that will protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual; we will have a bill of rights which will say an individual shall not be deprived of his property except by due process of law; we will have a bill of rights which will say an individual is entitled to a fair hearing. Then, on the other hand, the government introduces a piece of legislation like the Feeds Act which in these two instances-there are about 10 others to which I shall not refer-violates these principles of the bill of rights about which this government gloats so much.
I think, Mr. Chairman, when we have the state of affairs where the minister is coming to some logical conclusion, as he calls it, and then founding on that conclusion a presumption of a dictatorial situation while at the same time the minister and his colleagues are guilty of violating the bill of rights itself, it is a rather sad situation. The government has violated the bill of rights, first, by enacting this Feeds Act; second, by retaining on the statute books, without amendment, other legislation such as the Customs Act and the Income Tax Act, which are in conflict with this bill of rights. In so far as the Income Tax Act is concerned this is not my opinion alone because there is a court decision, I believe in the province of Quebec, supporting this point of view.
I think it is a sad and sorry state of affairs, Mr. Chairman, when we have a minister with the intellect and ability of this minister, as was evidenced by the article written by Mr. Nicholson to which the hon. member for Port Arthur referred, lauding to the high heavens the efficacy of the bill of rights and how much it means, a minister who belongs to a political party which is shipping out propaganda prepared by Allister Grosart to the effect that the bill of rights really means something in this country, while at the same time drafting legislation which contravenes the bill of rights and is completely contradictory to it. This government, at the same time, refuses to introduce amendments to such legislation as the Income Tax Act and the Customs Act, both of which contain provisions that contravene the bill of rights in a terrible way.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, when we have a minister who belongs to a government that has this sort of record of supporting legislation which is contradictory to the bill of rights, supporting legislation which permits

individuals to be deprived of their property, supporting legislation which really removes the courts of this nation from their position as an integral part of the judicial system, we must look askance at any spurious reasoning on the part of that minister or his government in coming to so called logical conclusions on the basis of opinions expressed by other hon. members.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I answer this at once because this is the second year in which my hon. friend and others in his group have made similar assertions with regard to the Feeds Act, all of which are equally unfounded, and it is time they were answered again at once.
My hon. friend makes the assertion, and appears to believe that it will gather strength by repetition because he repeated it many times, that the Feeds Act is directly contrary to the bill of rights. The fact of the matter is that the Feeds Act is not contrary to the bill of rights and does not contravene it in any particular in letter or in spirit. Of course we had the bill of rights in mind in 1960 when the Feeds Act and other statutes of that year were drafted and were presented to the house. We took care, as we have taken care ever since 1957, that no statute that we present to the House of Commons will be contrary to the bill of rights because that was one of the basic views of this government as it still is.
My hon. friend refers to section 8 of the bill which gives an inspector the right to seize property which he believes has been used to commit a violation of the act. There is seizure, yes; and there is nothing contrary to the bill of rights in authorizing seizure of property which is believed on reasonable grounds to have been used for the commission of an offence against our laws, but there is no forfeiture without due process of law.
The very section to which my hon. friend refers goes on in its succeeding words to provide that the property shall be restored to the person from whom it was seized, at the end of six months unless within that time judicial proceedings have been instituted in respect of the violation. Then it goes on to provide that it is only as a result of conviction for the offence that the property may be retained by the crown: it is only then that the owner may be deprived of his property. That scheme was developed with the bill of rights very much in mind.
This committee will be aware of the fact that in many statutes in the past providing for seizure, the seizure became forfeiture, in many cases without due process of law, without the owner, whether innocent or otherwise, having any chance to assert his 90205-6-343
Supply-Justice
innocence of the crime or offence in connection with which the goods were seized. Whether innocent or otherwise, he was deprived of his property rights without the necessity of any conviction.
Here, because of our awareness of the bill of rights and the principle upon which legislation of this kind should in our view be founded, we have deliberately provided that there would be no forfeiture except on conviction and then the court may order the goods forfeited. Nothing then can be clearer than that forfeiture-that is actual deprivation of property-can only come about by due process of law. And in order to make certain that the crown cannot in effect deprive a person of his property simply by seizing it and then refraining from bringing action on the offence, it is provided that unless proceedings are started within six months the goods must be restored. That provision again was put in out of an abundance of caution. We do not believe that responsible administrators would be likely to follow such a course, but it is possible that they might do so. We therefore put in that provision expressly to make it impossible for the crown effectively to deprive a person of the enjoyment or ownership of property by seizing it and then just leaving the matter in abeyance. Hence there is no contravention of the bill of rights there. Indeed, the section was clearly drafted with the principle of the bill of rights very much in mind.
The other point that my hon. friend makes is that the bill contains a provision that makes it clear that although an offence may have been committed by an employee, it is sufficient to prove or to establish that it was committed by that employee or agent of the accused without the necessity of identifying personally who that employee or agent was and that then the owner is liable for the offence.
It is a well understood principle of criminal law, as it has been for years, and indeed it is a well understood principle of common law -and it is not contrary to the bill of rights -employers are liable for the acts of their employees committed in the course of their employment. The criminal liability of an employer for the act of his employee committed in the course of his duties is a matter that has been well understood and well recognized and that the bill of rights does not in any way challenge. But it must be borne in mind that even although that is a fairly complete liability, the Feeds Act does not relieve the crown of any onus of proof with respect to the offence. The crown must prove that the offence was committed by an employee of a person charged. They do not have

Supply-J ustice
to prove by name who that individual was but they would have to prove that it was an employee or agent of the person charged. They cannot just come along and say "We know that somebody committed this offence and we think it was an employee of the person charged". They have to prove that it was an employee or agent of the person charged. Then the well known doctrine of liability for the acts of employees or agents authorized and committed in the course of their employment speaks for the rest of the situation.
I am sorry if my hon. friend does not, as I expect he will not, accept my explanation. However, I can only assure him that all the persons with whom I have discussed this act and in whose advice as experts I have confidence, have assured me that technically it has been drawn with the bill of rights concept in mind and that there is nothing in the act which in any sense runs counter to the bill of rights. This is the technical situation, and it is the same with regard to the spirit and intent of that act. As I have indicated, because of our awareness of the bill of rights and the bill of rights concept and the principle upon which we believe legislation should be founded, even though the bill of rights had not been enacted we carried its spirit into the Feeds Act.


Charles Benjamin Howard: 
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, may I answer that question at once. Yes, certainly it is a principle of fundamental justice, and has been for generations. What my hon. friend does not seem to realize is that where you have, for instance, a store and the clerk in the store sells something contrary to the act, it has been a principle for years that the owner of the store may be prosecuted and convicted. There is nothing new in this.
I cannot say any more than that it is a fundamental principle of justice, because otherwise what my hon. friend is asking is that we have two convictions, that we prosecute the employee individually and convict him, and then go after the owner. This has never been a principle of our law or of justice.
If the store is owned by an individual or a corporation, and a clerk sells something contrary to the act, the owner is liable, and always has been, and I think most sensible Canadians would want that situation to continue.


Charles Benjamin Howard: And I presume the employee is also liable?


Edmund Davie Fulton: He may be liable also.


Charles Benjamin Howard: This, again, amounts to depriving somebody of the right to a fair hearing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not at all, because under the provisions of section 8 the employee cannot be convicted unless he is prosecuted. Section 8 is directed to the situation with regard to the employer, who may be prosecuted and convicted even though the employee is not 90205-6-343J
Supply-J ustice
identified personally, provided the crown shows that it was an employee of that man who committed the offence. Of course, you would have to prosecute the employee before he could be convicted.
As I say, I think most Canadians would not want owners who operate stores to be sheltered behind the fact that some minor employee was involved. My hon. friend apparently wants the minor employee to carry the responsibility and the owner to get off scot-free. That is not our idea in the bill of rights.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, this is a deliberate misuse of what I was saying.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, it is the logical outcome of what you have said.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I do not know whether the Minister of Justice was the attorney general a while ago, or the crown prosecutor, or what he was, but just a moment ago the Minister of Justice deliberately took my words, distorted them and levelled accusations against me which were not implicit in what I said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend does not know what he has been saying, that is the trouble, or the implications of what he has been saying.


An hon. Member:: That is his usual trouble.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I merely say again to the Minister of Justice-and we need not get too excited or heated about this-that this is about the third time he has been caught out making accusations against me during these estimates-


An hon. Member:: You are the one who
has been caught out.


Charles Benjamin Howard: -when matters have been raised which are embarrassing to the minister and this government, and that is all it is.


James Ross Fulton: None is so blind as he who will not see.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I would commend to both the Minister of Justice and all hon. members the words of the Prime Minister:
If the hon. gentleman, who does most of his talking from a seated position, will remain silent,
I will continue with the argument.
I would also refer the minister to the Prime Minister's reference about those who have "an inveterate desire to babble away".


Edmund Davie Fulton: Who has been on his feet all the time this afternoon?


Charles Benjamin Howard: The remark I have just quoted applies to a number of hon. members. First the Minister of Justice was accusing me of trying to promote a system of dictatorship in

Supply-J ustice
this government, when he himself is a member of a government that really believes in it.


Mr. Churchill:: That is quite wrong.


Charles Benjamin Howard: When he became embarrassed about that particular question the minister then attempted to accuse me of some other sort of activity with respect to a clerk selling something in a store, saying that I want the employee to be prosecuted without the due process of law.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not what I said.


Charles Benjamin Howard: These assinine accusations are typical of these gentlemen who come from Kamloops, and in this regard the Minister of Justice has a good counterpart in another gentleman from Kamloops who is in the M.L.A. of British Columbia. I refer to the minister of highways. What it shows, conclusively, I think, is what results from having a political figure interpret whether or not particular bills are in conflict with the provisions of the bill of rights and how it is so easy to give political considerations the first run and have relatively little use for the real facts of the case.
I consider that the Minister of Justice has flexibly interpreted the bill of rights in order to protect his government and the Minister of Agriculture in so far as the Feeds Act is concerned and that he has flexibly interpreted the application of the bill of rights so that he would not need to make an embarrassing decision in connection with Bill No. C-76 introduced by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. These are instances where the minister has been caught out, and the hon. gentleman has resorted to his usual tactic of attacking other members, on the basis that attack is the best form of defence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman should not try to put the blame on me when he is convicted out of his own mouth. I am not going to carry this argument further. It will be obvious to any hon. member who is prepared to look at this matter dispassionately, on which side of this discussion reason is to be found, though I know it will not be admitted by the hon. member who has just spoken. There is a further misunderstanding which will be obvious, I suggest, to everyone, though, once again, I do not think for a moment it will be admitted by the hon. member for Skeena. The hon. member persists in saying that it is a mistake to give the Minister of Justice responsibility for determining whether or not a statute is contrary to the provisions of the bill of rights. I point out for the information of the committee that the bill of rights does not give the minister any such responsibility. The courts, and the courts alone will determine

whether a statute is contrary to the provisions of the bill of rights. I endeavoured to explain this in the course of the debate on the bill of rights.
It is true there is an obligation imposed on the minister to report to the House of Commons whether there is in his opinion anything inconsistent between a particular bill and the provisions of the bill of rights. This is the one occasion on which, as far as I know, the minister has a statutory duty to advise the House of Commons. But the House of Commons does not have to accept his advice. The house can say, if it wishes, tha it does not agree, and may take the view that a particular bill is contrary to the provisions of the bill of rights, notwithstanding the report made by the Minister of Justice. The House of Commons is the master of its own decisions, and the Minister of Justice neither can nor wishes to dictate to it. But whether the minister is right or wrong, and whether the House of Commons accepts his opinion or not, it is the courts and the courts alone which have to make the final decision, and this was the system envisaged in the bill of rights, as we endeavoured to make clear at the time.
As far as all the other red herrings trailed by the hon. member for Skeena are concerned, may I say to him again that it is perfectly clear I am not in the least embarrassed by any report I may have to make. I did not report on one particular bill because I did not think it was properly before the house, but I stated without hesitation, when the proper occasion arose, that in my view the Fisheries Act as it previously existed contained provisions contrary to what is contained in the bill of rights, and this government introduced legislation to remove those provisions and bring the act into conformity with the bill of rights. The hon. member will find another bill to be introduced shortly where provision is made for bringing a statute into conformity with the bill of rights by amending an existing statute. We have no embarrassment about saying that a measure is contrary to the provisions of the bill of rights and taking action to amend it when we present bills to the house. However, with deference to the views of others, I must be allowed to interpret for myself what my duty is and I suggest I can scarcely be criticized if I interpret my responsibility as being not to make a report to the house at the wrong time.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The minister says he does not expect me to be in accord with the views he has expressed. Technically speaking, it is true that the courts interpret our statutes and find out what they mean, but in the first instance the minister has a duty to examine

bills and say whether or not they are consistent with the provision of the bill of rights. He is ordered to examine every bill presented to the House of Commons with that purpose in mind. Certainly this involves interpreting those statutes in the light of the requirements of the bill of rights. It is in this sense that I used that expression. I do not think the minister would deny that he has the obligation to examine bills from this point of view. Certainly, when they become statutes the courts are involved and would then determine whether or not they are consistent with the provisions of the bill of rights, along the same lines as the decision with respect to the Income Tax Act in Quebec and the decision reached in the community of Lillooet in British Columbia concerning whether a certain section of the Indian Act is in conflict with the bill of rights. However, the minister has the initial responsibility of reviewing new legislation and it is in this sense that I say it is a mistake to give this authority to a political figure.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no authority given to me. There is a responsibility imposed upon me to report to the house.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Then you should exercise it once in a while.


Chesley William Carter: If this is the responsibility imposed on the Minister of Justice, it is certainly one which he imposed on himself, or which his government imposed on him, because it was his government which brought in the legislation requiring the minister to make a report of this kind on bills introduced in the house.
I gather from what the minister said in his reply to the hon. member for Skeena a few moments ago that the purpose of this report is to advise members in dealing with legislation going through the house. I take it that is the reply to the question which I sought to have answered by the hon. gentleman yesterday. But what is the use of this advice to hon. members if we are unable to get it, as we could not get it in the case of Bill No. C-76, and what use is it if the minister himself can determine whether or not a report should be made, if he is to be the sole arbiter of whether something is before the house or whether it is not before the house. If the hon. gentleman can refrain from making a report whenever it suits him, what kind of a report is it? I think that is the heart of the question which the hon. member for Skeena is raising.
Earlier this afternoon in replying to the hon. member for Skeena the minister said that the seizure of a person's goods did not constitute an interference with the rights of an individual provided there is no penalty-
Supply-Justice


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not what I said.


Chesley William Carter: The minister referred to seizure. The minister also said, again this afternoon, that the new fisheries legislation, Bill No. C-86, was examined by him and found not to be inconsistent with the bill of rights. I want to put a concrete case on record which I think will prove that the minister is wrong. Hon. members will recall that I protested at the time this particular piece of legislation was before the house, on the grounds that the seizure of property-


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we had a debate on this subject when the Fisheries Act was before the house. The question of whether or not is was in conformity with the bill of rights was raised, and the house apparently accepted my report that it was in conformity with those provisions. I suggest that it is not in order, on my estimates, to revert to that debate.


Chesley William Carter: On the point of order, I am not reviving a debate on that legislation. The hon. member for Skeena drew attention to a number of cases in which the provisions of the bill of rights were contravened, including the Feeds Act. I am doing the same thing now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was passed two years ago.


Chesley William Carter: I intend to direct the minister's attention to a situation which contravenes the bill of rights in respect of the Fisheries Act. To do so I shall cite an example.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, with all respect I must ask you to rule on this matter. I do not recall for certain, but I believe the hon. member voted for the bill to revise the Fisheries Act. It was carried after we had a discussion as to whether it was in conformity with the bill of rights or not; that was one of the issues raised at the time and was thoroughly discussed. A decision was made in respect to it during this session. I simply wish to draw attention to the rule of this house which makes it out of order for any hon. member to revive or debate decisions of this house made during the same session. The Feeds Act was decided two years ago, and I should suggest there is no similarity between raising a question in regard to the Feeds Act conforming with the bill of rights, and reviving a debate in respect of the revised Fisheries Act, the debate of which has only been concluded at this session.


Chesley William Carter: I am not reviving the debate on the Fisheries Act. The minister has not permitted me to say enough in respect of what I intend to place before this committee so that the chairman can make a ruling.

Supply-Justice


Jacques Flynn: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will pursue his remarks a little further, in order that I may decide whether he is within the rules.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I base my remarks on a statement made by the Minister of Justice earlier this afternoon in reply to the hon. member for Skeena. I intend to present an example indicating that the Fisheries Act does not conform to the bill of rights. I intended to point out that, where a seizure is made of any property, whether it be made under the provisions of the Fisheries Act or any other act, which deprives an individual of earning a livelihood, that act, under which the seizure is made, is contrary to the principles of our bill of rights. I suggest that is true, because the greatest right a citizen may enjoy is the right to live and, when that right is removed through the seizure of his means of earning a livelihood, it is contrary to the bill of rights.
I intended, when I was interrupted, to present an example which would indicate the accurateness of what I suggest, which happens to involve the seizure of fishing property under the Fisheries Act. I did not intend to revive the debate on the Fisheries Act, but to suggest that such a seizure, under any act, would exemplify the situation I have in mind. The example 1 intend to use involves a fisherman whose nets were seized by a fisheries officer under the provisions of the Fisheries Act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which Fisheries Act, the old or the new?


Chesley William Carter: I suggest it does not make any difference.


Mr. Jones:: You do not know the difference.


Chesley William Carter: The point which I have in mind is one of four which the minister did not change in the re-enactment of the Fisheries Act, and is the reason why I protest the certification, given this house by the minister, in relation to the new Fisheries Act, that it does not contravene the bill of rights. I agree with the suggestion of the minister that I voted for the bill. I did so because it contained better provisions than the old Fisheries Act. I felt that half a loaf was better than none at all.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the provisions regarding seizure and forfeiture under the new Fisheries Act are quite different from those under the old act. I suggest the hon. member is not only seeking to revive a debate of this session, but is now seeking to discuss a statute which is no longer in force.


Chesley William Carter: No, Mr. Chairman, I am not doing that at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are.


Chesley William Carter: Will the minister deny that the present act allows a fisheries officer to seize a fisherman's property? If the minister will deny that, I will sit down. I suggest he cannot deny that fact, and is interpreting my remarks without any foundation of fact at all.
Mr. Chairman, to go on with the example, a fisherman's nets were seized apparently by individuals who had no knowledge regarding boats or fishing equipment, and who were probably more at home behind a desk. Following the seizure of this man's nets the man was brought before the courts. After the case against him was presented, the magistrate found that he had not offended against the Fisheries Act in any way, and dismissed the charge against him. The nets which had been seized, and stored, were eventually returned to him. They had not been properly taken care of; had been left wet to mould and rot. Upon their return to the fisherman they were worthless and of absolutely no value to him.
I remind hon. members that the court decided this man had committed no offence at all. Nevertheless, because of the fact that the nets were returned to him in a useless condition, and because he had been denied the use of the nets from the time of seizure, and thereafter, he was penalized. In addition to that, this man now finds himself without nets and, because of his lack of finances, unable to purchase new ones. He has no recourse and is unable to recover the value of his nets because he is a poor man; unable to go through the legal processes of suing the crown for the damages he has suffered. I suggest in this instance the man has been deprived of his right to earn a living and suggest, therefore, the act under which this seizure was made contravenes the provisions of our bill of rights.


Jacques Flynn: Order. Perhaps I may stop the hon. gentleman at this point and say that I have been wondering whether the general discussion has been in order, inasmuch as it has not been confined to section 3 of the bill of rights. Hon. members have adopted a course that the Minister of Justice is responsible for any provision which may be contained in any act. That does not represent my view of the situation, and I would suggest it should not be the view of the committee generally. Any discussion in regard to the application of section 3 of the bill of rights is, of course, in order. However, I suggest that in any discussion based on the provisions of any act, one should not confuse the responsibilities of the minister, the government, or parliament itself. It is for that reason I have expressed some doubt as

to the propriety of many of the comments which have been made since I returned to this chamber this afternoon. I did not intend to interrupt the hon. member in view of the great number of references which have been made this afternoon, as well as yesterday, in respect to this particular subject, but I suggest that hon. members confine their discussion to subjects which are in order, and appropriate to our consideration of the estimates of the Minister of Justice. I do not intend to make any ruling now, but I should like to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that I have some grave doubts regarding the propriety of some of the statements which have been made.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I will now pass to another subject which will probably put the discussion on more solid ground.
The minister announced the introduction of:
A bill to carry out a narcotics control program, a bill to revise the Criminal Code to deal with dangerous sexual offenders and matters of that sort and also a bill to amend the Food and Drugs Act to deal with barbiturates.
The point I wish to make is that penalties are not proportionate to the crimes committed.
I see that section 138 of the Criminal Code authorizes judges to sentence to life imprisonment or to whipping, according to the judgment of the one who hears the case, any man who is found guilty of having had sexual intercourse with a woman, other than his wife, who is less that 14 years old, regardless of whether the accused knew or did not know that his victim was less that 14. Judges are not compelled to pass such sentence; they merely have the authority of doing so.
I feel that when a child under 12 is raped, the minimum sentence should be made more strict.
We have heard of psychopaths attacking chidren four or five years old and causing such harm to them that the latter were practically maimed for life, not to mention the dangerous inclination they were given by coming into contact too early with things they should have learned much later in life.
Yet, some judges, either because they lack firmness or for some other reason, have handed out sentences of only three to four years while the victim was left to suffer all her life from the attack. Minimum sentences should be more stringent in such cases.
Since the minister is presently preparing a bill in that regard I think he should provide for a stiffer minimum sentence and take away from the judges the authority of passing a lighter sentence, at their discretion.
Supply-J ustice
When the victim is a child of less than 12, when violence is involved, when the victim's personality has been practically destroyed, not only should the penalty be life imprisonment but there should be a minimum of 25 years detention with the whip as an extra.
Perhaps it will be said that I am a sadist. Yesterday evening, I heard a psychiatrist say on television that those who demand the retention of capital punishment are sadists, in a way. Such sadism is good for the protection of society. Our first concern should be the protection of society rather than the protection of criminals.
This is why I suggest that the sentence should be at least 25 years when a child is violently assaulted to the extent that it will be marked for the rest of its life.
I suggest that in such cases the minimum sentence be 25 years in the penitentiary with flogging.
A judge should be empowered to impose capital punishment to an individual convicted of such a crime. Capital punishment applies to kidnapping in the United States, and the individual convicted of that crime goes to the electric chair.
For my part, I think rape involving a child is a far more odious crime and, therefore, I do not think that 25 years with flogging is too much. I even suggest that the judge be allowed to sentence the convict to capital punishment under certain circumstances.
Mr. Chairman, I now turn to another field, narcotics.
There are those who will say that the narcotics act is the responsibility of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
However, it must be remembered that the Minister of National Health and Welfare cannot amend the narcotics act without first consulting the Department of Justice.
And as the minister indicated yesterday, a new bill will be submitted shortly. Under the circumstances, and following the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I say we must make every effort to try to cure the drug addicts.
I think very severe penalties should be imposed when it is proven that a person was the leader of a narcotic ring, as happened recently in Montreal.
Indeed, I consider the drug distributor as guilty of an even greater offence than murder, because he kills the personality and draws the victim of this vice into a dead end.

Supply-J ustice
Such a person should get not ten years, as it happened, but a minimum of 25 years and the lash.
Furthermore, in such a case, the judge should be entitled to impose the death sentence, because the drug peddler has killed the souls of people by destroying their personality. Those victims may later become murderers and be sent to the gallows.
A person who organizes the sale of narcotics in this country, thus promoting a new attitude on the part of drug addicts, is worse than a murderer.
In that case, the only true murderer is probably not the one who killed, but the one who prepared him for it by supplying the necessary drugs and inciting him to commit the offence.
That is why I ask the Minister of Justice, to see to it, when drafting those laws that we shall discuss, that they at least be strict enough to be a deterrent for those pushers who accumulated millions by selling the drugs. For, having been sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, they will probably be released after five, and return to society to enjoy their accrued capital under the very noses of their victims. The matter is important, and I shall ask the minister to study very seriously that aspect of the legislation in order to protect society not so much against the murderer, who committed the act because of the drugs sold to him, and therefore tends to be considered as the real offender, but against the narcotics pusher who is the true offender. Society must be protected against those swindlers at any price.
I therefore ask the minister to provide stricter legislation with regard to such people, rather than murderers, because the latter are in a way, often the victims of individuals who, all their lives have made profit out of vice.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I note that yesterday, hon. members for Hochelaga and Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Eudes and Mr. Deschatelets) raised certain points in respect of a brief which was submitted to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) in March 1961, and, as I have only a few more minutes to go before the period set aside for the discussion of public bills, I wonder whether he would give an answer in that respect.
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: I replied certainly in part, if not completely, to that matter yesterday when I said that the matter of firearms-I think this is the one dealing with the firearms provision of the code-is very much before us. 
We submitted certain tentative proposals to the commissioners on uniformity of laws in the criminal law section last year. They reported back to us for further study, and we intend the matter to go before them again this fall. In the meantime the brief reflecting the point of view of the association of Canadian police chiefs will be carefully considered and those suggestions borne in mind in the reference back to the commissioners and in discussion there.


William Arnold Peters: Will you call it five o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have had a good two days' discussion. Will the committee carry the first item and deal with the particulars tomorrow?


Jacques Flynn: Since it is five o'clock, in order to permit the house to deal with public and private bills, pursuant to standing order 15 (3), it is my duty to report progress and request leave to sit again later this day, or next sitting of the house, as the case may be.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of public and private bills, the former having precedence.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-30, an act to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.-Mr. Howard.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) both raised a point of order with respect to the position of this order of the day on the order paper, which I deferred for disposition at this time. I shall be glad to hear the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who I see is rising, if he has something to add to what he said the other day on the same point of order.


John Ferguson Browne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to make one or two more comments on this matter. At the time I raised the point of order before I did not have before me the copy of Hansard for the previous day. I should like to bring to Your Honour's attention page 5083 of Hansard of Friday, May 19, 1961. When the order for second reading of Bill No. C-30, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, was read by the Clerk, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) had an opportunity to move second

reading of his bill. I believe that the citation which I drew to Your Honour's attention at that time, namely citation 380 of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, indicates quite clearly that an obligation is placed on an hon. member. When the order is read by the Clerk he is then obligated to rise and move second reading of his bill.
Now, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) failed to do that at that time. I suggest to Your Honour that by attempting to have hon. members call it six o'clock when it was only five minutes to six, he indicated quite clearly he was not prepared to move second reading of the bill. If I may refer to Hansard, the same page, 5083, I find that after the house declined to call it six o'clock, the hon. member for Skeena then went on to say this:
If hon. members are not Inclined to follow the course suggested by me,-
In other words, because we declined to call it six o'clock when it was not six o'clock, the hon. member went on to take another course to dispose of the bill. I feel very strongly that this course of action was taken simply to prevent the second reading of the bill at that time in order that it would retain its place on the order paper, which it should not have retained. I submit this very seriously affects the rights of every private member to have bills heard. As we know, the time for the consideration of private bills is limited during the session. It is obvious that if this bill is heard first, some of those at the bottom of the order paper will not be heard at all. This very seriously affects the rights of hon. members.
There has been difficulty in this regard already involving the hon. member for Skeena because he is one of those members who, during the whole of the last session, filibustered the divorce bills and prevented other private bills from being heard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I think the hon. member would be departing from the point of order if he were to discuss the conduct of the hon. member in connection with other matters.


John Ferguson Browne: I am
drawing to the attention of the house the difficulty in which other private members are placed in trying to have their bills considered. Almost half of the time allotted for private members' bills during this session has been taken up by a filibuster in connection with another bill, and the hon. member for Skeena has been involved in this event as well.
90205-6-344
Private Bills


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member one question, the answer to which would be of considerable assistance. Does he assert that the purpose for which an hon. member raises a point of order has any relevance when the house is considering that point of order? In other words, if a member has a right to raise a point of order, is there any obligation to consider the purpose for which he raised it? That is one argument which the hon. member advances, and I wonder whether or not he has considered the proposition and asserts it to be the case?


John Ferguson Browne: I do
raise that point for your consideration. I fail to see how a point of order could possibly intervene after the order for second reading of Bill No. C-30 was read by the Clerk. At that time there was an obligation on the hon. member for Skeena to move second reading of his bill. The raising of a point of order for the purpose of ensuring that the bill does not come before the house, does not relieve his obligation.
I started to read citation 385 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, but at that time Your Honour felt the whole matter could be considered at a later time and I did not complete my reading of that citation. It is relevant, and reads:
If, when the order of the day is read at the table, no motion be made for the second reading or other stage of a bill, or for its postponement, it becomes a dropped order, and does not appear again upon the notice paper, unless another day be appointed for its consideration.
I suggest to Your Honour that no motion was made for second reading of this bill and, therefore, it clearly comes within this citation and should be considered as a dropped order.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka brought to Your Honour's attention citation 87. He placed one or two of the relevant clauses before you at that time, but I should like to read citation 87 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, section 4, which has a bearing on the matter and reads as follows:
It is one of the fundamental principles of parliamentary procedure that when nothing is done respecting an order of business it is struck out and cannot make further progress until the procedure regulating its passage has been regulated by the house.
Now, nothing was done in connection with the case. It was not brought before the house. Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 87, points out very clearly that when an order has been read it must thereupon be proceeded with, appointed for a day or discharged. I suggest that none of these things happened in this case, although there was sufficient time.
In addition to the arguments I have advanced in connection with these citations,

Private Bills
I believe that the only reason the hon. member raised the point of order was that he wanted to call it six o'clock. In his own words, he indicated that he was raising the point of order because we would not agree to call it six o'clock, thus ensuring that the bill would not come before the house. I suggest that was the only reason he raised that point of order and for that reason I believe the relevance of the point of order does become a factor in this discussion.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I might say a word on this point of order. Actually, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) did raise a point of order and in speaking to it he said, as recorded on page 5083 of Hansard:
My point of order is that some time ago a statement of policy was made by a representative of the government with respect to public bills sponsored by private members.
The hon. member then went on to say that such bills shall be heard and given full study. He said:
Today we have seen this course followed in an admirable way,-
Actually, the hon. member had no point of order and I would suggest to Your Honour that his bill was up for second reading, the order was read to the house, and the hon. member for Skeena actually raised an invalid point of order in order to protect the position of his bill on the order paper.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: May I make one or two comments on this particular matter, Mr. Speaker? I had a very edifying experience very early in my career, sir, when I tried to do something of a similar nature. As will be seen from a perusal of page 1730 of Hansard for June 27, 1958, I was speaking to a motion for second reading of my bill when Your Honour indicated that I was not entitled to read from an editorial. My situation at that time was similar to that of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), and I rose on a question of privilege relating to my right to refer to this particular editorial.
At that time, you, in effect, questioned the right of an hon. member to interrupt himself and proceed with another matter. I suggest that, although at that particular time I raised a question of privilege, a point of order is similar and what the hon. member for Skeena was seeking to do was to interrupt himself. Once the Clerk of the house had read the order, as is clearly indicated in Hansard at page 5083-
Second reading of Bill C-30, an act to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act-Mr. Howard.-

-the hon. member then had no alternative but to proceed with this particular measure. He endeavoured to interrupt himself, just as I did, and I suggest a ruling should have been made that he was not entitled to interrupt himself. The bill was called for second reading and the hon. member decided to take up the time by talking on another matter which, I suggest, was irrelevant. If he wishes to utilize the time available for this particular bill by discussing a point of order, then perhaps that is his prerogative. I would suggest that the bill was properly before the house. The hon. member should have proceeded with it. He was not entitled to interrupt himself on a point of order as he sought to do. But if he wished to dispose of the bill himself by talking it out on a point of order, I might suggest that perhaps that was up to him, because there was not sufficient time for a reply to be made. But having erroneously interrupted himself and proceeded to that particular point, I think he is estopped in effect from proceeding with the bill. I think there was a strong indication, that the course of action he was taking was a delaying tactic in light of the fact that at five minutes to six he called it six o'clock.
But having had his day in court, shall we say, I think the bill is passed. There are other members such as the hon. member for Kingsway (Mr. Browne) and myself, as a matter of fact, who are very close to getting our bills before the house. We are approaching the end of the session, and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and myself are anxious to have our bills discussed before the house. Although I sympathize with the hon. member for Skeena in the unfortunate situation in which he finds himself nevertheless I feel that he has had his chance. His timing was not too good but his opportunity has passed. I think we should now proceed with the next order of business, Mr. Speaker, and that you should rule that the hon. member for Skeena has had his opportunity to speak; that if he chose to speak on a point of order, that matter was up to him, but that his opportunity has passed.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I wish to make one brief comment, although I covered it when this point of order was initially raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne). I contended that he was incorrect in raising it then just as I contend that he is incorrect in raising it now. I think that is the essence of it, although it was not put very well there. It is interesting to note that the viewpoint is being maintained by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Drysdale) who, by his own admission, along with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway

has a peculiarly personal interest in this matter. Those hon. members are next in line.
I would say this. While the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond on a previous occasion was prevented from interrupting himself, I pointed out that by raising the point of order I was not interrupting myself because no motion had been made with respect to the matter.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I would point out that in the rules there is no provision which permits an hon. member, once a bill has been read out by the Clerk, to intervene on a point of order. Perhaps it might be possible to do so on a question of privilege. I would suggest that the proper way for it to have been done was for him to indicate that he was proceeding with the bill, to start the discussion of the bill and that then it might have been possible to raise a point of order at that particular time.
As a matter of interest, I may say that I am down to seventh or eighth place in the matter of precedence. There are several other hon. members ahead of me and behind me who have a similar interest in getting on with a discussion of their particular bills. I think the suggestion made by the hon. member in that respect is erroneous.
As to the time of intervention or interjection by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, may I say he raised it last Saturday morning at the first opportunity when the order paper was obviously in error in having the hon. member's bill at the top of the list. I would suggest that he was completely in order today in rising on this specific point of order again when the bill was improperly at the head of the list. I think the hon. member for Skeena is in error in suggesting there was a mistake on the part of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway when he raised this matter.
Mr. Pallet!: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this matter because I think there may be something to be added to what has already been said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond and the hon. member for Skeena. They have very carefully referred to Beauchesne, paragraphs 380, 385 and 87. However, the matter hinges on the interpretation of standing order 19 (1) and (2). If I may, I should like to refer for a moment to some of the documents of the house itself in order to assist Your Honour in interpreting this particular section.
I think the matter is one of considerable importance to the private members of this house. The time allocated to them is set out on definite hours or definite days. If for 90205-6-344i
Private Bills
some reason or another-and I am not suggesting that this was the situation in this case-an hon. member's bill is not reached until the private members hour is fairly well along, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a point of order should be raised by that member with, for example, even 15 minutes to go of the hour and that such time could be used up in that way. It is not a question of a few minutes-I just used that figure by way of illustration-but it is a question of whether this procedure might not be used as a device some time in the future for the purpose of getting an hon. member's bill in a priority position on the order paper or by way of a device to maintain it there.
With that point in mind, I think this decision is probably one of the most serious ones affecting the private members of the house that Your Honour has been called upon to make for some time. Standing order 19 states:
(1)	Questions put by members and notices of motions, not taken up when called may (upon the request of the government) be allowed to stand and retain their precedence: otherwise they will disappear from the order paper. They may, however, be renewed.
(2)	Orders not proceeded with when called, upon the like request,-
And it has been ruled by Your Honour in this house that "upon the like request" refers to a request of the government.
-may be allowed to stand retaining their precedence; otherwise they shall be dropped and be placed on the order paper for the next sitting after those of the same class at a similar stage.
(3)	All orders not disposed of at the adjournment of the house shall be postponed until the next sitting day, without a motion to that effect.
In ruling I think Your Honour must determine what is meant by the words "proceeded with when called". I would refer Your Honour to the record of this house which is called Votes and Proceedings. Nowhere in it in reference to orders do you find a question called. I refer to the day on which this particular matter was dealt with, namely Friday, May 19. Proceeding to some bills that preceded Bill No. C-30, we find in Votes and Proceedings of May 19, at page 565, under the heading "Public Bills" and referring to Bill No. C-27:
The order being read for the second reading of Bill C-27, an act to amend the the Senate and House of Commons Act (Solicitor General's Eligibility);
Then we go on to the next one and we find the following:
The order being read for the second reading of Bill C-29, an act to amend the Representation Act;
Following this recital in Votes and Proceedings we then have the recital that the hon. member made a motion, duly seconded, in the particular cases. I suggest to Your Honour

Private Bills
that under standing order 19 (1) and (2) the motion being "called" is identical with being "read"; and so in Votes and Proceedings also of May 19 with respect to the bill in question, namely Bill No. C-30, we find the following:
The order being read for the second reading of Bill C-30, an act to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act:
I submit, Your Honour, that this is the same as being called under standing order 19. Whether or not the point of order raised was a bona fide or a bogus one is a matter I think Your Honour is not called upon to decide. I think it is a question of these particular words.
In the event that "called" is not the same as "read", some steps will have to be taken to rewrite Votes and Proceedings for many years, because it is in this context that the official records of the house have been kept.
If "read" is the same as "called", the authorities referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway contained in Beau-chesne, citations 380, 385 and 87, are pertinent. Your Honour will also find in May, fifteenth edition, and all other authorities, that when an order is read-he refers to "read" and not "called"-and not proceeded with, it is dropped.
I submit these points for Your Honour's consideration in making this very vital decision, which is one that could have very far reaching effects on the rights of hon. members of this house to proceed with the business that is "called" by our wording but "read" by the wording in the official record of proceedings of the house and by the wording in the authorities for other houses.
For these reasons I submit that the arguments advanced by the hon. members for Vancouver-Kingsway and Vancouver-Bur-rard are most important and certainly should be given very earnest and serious consideration by Your Honour.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Speaker, I just want to supplement very briefly what the hon. member has said. Perhaps I should correct the hon. member and tell him that my riding is Burnaby-Richmond. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard is not present at this time.


Mr. Pallell:: I am sorry.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: He probably has enough problems without this submission being attributed to him. I should like to refer to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition, page 533. The wording is somewhat similar to Beauchesne. May refers to bills dropped and says:
It may here be stated, that if, when the order of the day is read at the table, no motion is

made for the second reading or other stage of a bill, or for its postponement, it becomes a dropped order, and does not appear again upon the notice paper, unless another day is appointed for its consideration.
The facts are exactly on point, because as is indicated at page 5083 of Hansard, the order was very clearly read. The hon. member then had the choice of proceeding with second reading or requesting postponement of this particular bill, and it is very clear that he had to make his choice at that specific moment.
The fact that the hon. member chose to raise a point of order when there was no provision for this indicates, I think, that he chose to treat it as a dropped order, since the only choice presented to him was to make the motion, which he chose not to do, or make a motion for postponement.
The rule is very clear; the onus is on the hon. member to take some specific form of action. By not taking any of the forms of action indicated in the rules I suggest he is estopped from proceeding. The effect is that the bill then becomes a dropped order, as I suggest it rightly is now.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Speaker, in reply to what the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett) in particular said, and those other hon. members who put forward this facetious reasoning, I would draw to Your Honour's attention Votes and Proceedings for Friday, April 21, page 463-


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I object to the reference of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that this is a facetious question, because the matter is one of great importance. Although the hon. member may view it in a facetious fashion, it is extremely important to hon. members following him whether or not their bills will be discussed.


Mr. Speaker:: The imputation is not serious enough to raise a question of privilege.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious to all what is happening. May I draw Your Honour's attention to Votes and Proceedings for Friday, April 21, page 463 which says that at five o'clock public and private bills were called pursuant to standing order 15. Then it says:
On the order being read for the second reading of Bill C-20, an act to amend the Small Loans Act, the honourable member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) requested that the said order be allowed to stand, and raised a point of order to the effect-

Then it sets out certain things and says there was a ruling by Mr. Deputy Speaker which was subsequently appealed to the house and the house decided a certain way. Then after disposition of the point of order, it says:
Accordingly, Mr. Argue, seconded by Mr. Regier, moved,-
-second reading of the bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I consider this matter to be of such importance that the house should give serious attention to it, because the ruling Your Honour will make will stand as a precedent for a very considerable time, if not forever. We are faced here with a suggested reversal of long established practice.
The hon. members who have preceded me have read our own rule in the house. They have quoted from Beauchesne. I should like to refer to the other references so that we have on record a clear picture of what has been the practice of the house, the rules and the comments on the rules over the years with regard to dropped motions or dropped orders.
Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, page 221, contains very much the same wording that we have in our rule. The complete citation is page 221, section XII, subsection 2 of rule 32 of that day, and it reads:
Orders not proceeded with when called, upon the like request, may be allowed to stand retaining their precedence; otherwise they shall be dropped and be placed on the order paper for the next sitting after those of the same class at a similar stage.
Obviously, sir, this has been the long established practice of the House of Commons because the third edition of Beauchesne dates back to 1903 and I suppose the fourth edition is a repetition of that.
I should also like to draw Your Honour's attention to the reference in Beauchesne, fourth edition, page 81 which was read by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne); but there is an additional sentence there which is interesting. The hon. member read as follows, and this is page 81, citation 87, subsection 4:
It is one of the fundamental principles of parliamentary procedure that when nothing is done respecting an order of business it is struck out and cannot make further progress until the procedure regulating its passage has been regulated by the house.
I suggest, sir, that this order of business having been called, or read out, and nothing having been done with it, according to our rules and the practice of the house it was then automatically struck out. Beauchesne goes on to say:
Neither the Speaker nor any officer of the house have the power to move it forward.
Private Bills
I suggest, sir, that this order should have been struck out, dropped entirely or placed at the bottom of the list. Then the onus would have been on the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to draw to Your Honour's attention whether or not that was established practice and whether it should have been dropped. But no officer of the house should have placed on the order paper in the position in which it appears, an order that had been read out and which had not been proceeded with. It should have been struck out or dropped, and it seems to me that the action taken exceeded the authority which is permitted according to the sentence which I have read from Beauchesne.
Then, in times of doubt concerning matters of rules and procedure we look to May, and the sixteenth edition of May at page 392 has a further comment to make with regard to dropped orders and indicates, of course, that they may be revived. May I point out in passing that although we suggested this order should have been dropped or placed at the bottom of the list, this does not mean further discussion on it is prohibited at a later date; it is not being thrown out entirely, because it can be revived by the hon. member. There is no prohibition involved in this at all. It is just a question of the order of precedence. May, at page 392, has this to say:
When an order of the day has been read, the proceedings thereon may be cut short by the adjournment of the house whilst those proceedings are in course of transaction. An order of the day, in such cases, or if, when the order is read, no day is appointed for its future consideration, drops off the notice paper, as the house has made no order thereon.
I suggest to you, sir, that the house was unable to take any action with regard to second reading of Bill No. C-30 because of the intervention of the proposer of the bill, at his own desire, in order, as we see it, to prevent consideration of the measure. According to the rules we have quoted to you and the citations we have placed on record in Hansard this particular order should not now be standing at the head of the order paper. The opportunity was available for the proposer to move it. He did not take that opportunity. Therefore, the house took no action with regard to it and the order is a dropped order and should not stand where it now stands.


Mr. Speaker:: The question before the Chair is one of considerable interest and importance and one to which I have given a good deal of thought in the interval since it was raised. I think certain principles are clear enough but I have one difficulty which I have not been able to resolve, and perhaps if I set out my views on the position of the

Private Bills
order for second reading of Bill No. C-30 I may be able to get some assistance on that doubtful point.
When an order such as this order of the house for a second reading of a bill is read by the Clerk, as was done in this case, the matter is not before the house for discussion until the motion has been moved. The motion must be taken up. After the order is read, various things may happen and most of the contingencies are provided for in our standing order No. 19. If the order is not proceeded with it is dropped under paragraph 2 of standing order 19 and it is argued that that is the applicable clause in the circumstances we now have under consideration. If the order is not disposed of, then paragraph 3 applies, and paragraph 3 of standing order 19 says:
All orders not disposed of at the adjournment of the house shall be postponed until the next sitting day, without a motion to that effect.
In fact, this matter was not disposed of- whether rightly or wrongly is a matter still to be determined. But if hon. members will turn to Hansard for the report of the debate in question the facts will be clear enough. The order was read by the clerk assistant, and the hon. member in whose name the order stood was then given the floor for the purpose of moving his motion. A motion can be put before the house either by being read from the chair, which is the customary practice- I suppose, to save time-or it can be moved by the hon. member in whose name it stands before it is read from the chair. The hon. member was given the floor for that purpose. I do not need to repeat what transpired, because it is set out in full at page 5083. The hon. member first suggested that it was six o'clock. It was not, in fact, six o'clock and the house did not concur in his request that it be called six o'clock. Then, without apparently relinquishing the floor or without any intervening action, he said, "Then I should like to raise a point of order".
It has been argued, and I think, correctly by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Drysdale) that a member should not rise on a point of order in order to deter or impede the progress of his own motion. In other words, he cannot raise a point of order against himself. I think that is a sound principle. It is certainly sound in forensic practice-a man cannot both approbate and reprobate if he is moving a motion. He cannot say, at the same time: "I am out of order in moving, but I move." That is what the hon. member, in effect, did. I accept that argument-the argument that it is not open to a member of the house who has the floor for the purpose of moving a motion or carrying on some proceeding in his name, or making a speech,

to make a point of order against his own progress in that manner. Having got thus far, I am up against the difficulty that, in fact, the hon. member's point of order was entertained instead of being rejected at that time, as I suggest it could have been rejected. And it was being entertained when the sitting came to a conclusion at six o'clock. Therefore, the question which is unresolved by the argument so far is this: assuming that what has been said is correct and that the duty of the hon. members was either to decline to proceed, or to proceed, or to move the postponement, or to take whatever other course was open to him, what is the position when as I have said he took a course which was not open to him, to raise a point of order against himself? As I have said, the hon. member did in fact proceed to speak without a motion having been made. He was heard, and six o'clock intervened. That is the way the order paper stood when the clerks had the duty of preparing the order paper for the next day. If the point had been taken at the time when the hon. member for Skeena had the floor for the sole purpose of moving his motion or asking that it should stand, and for no other purpose, then this difficulty about the subsequent order paper would not have arisen. Or, if the time had been sufficient for the nature of the point of order, which, appears to have no substance, to have been determined, it would then have been necessary to move second reading, and the hon. member would then have been under the obligation of moving, or allowing his motion to drop.
However, time intervened while this irregular discussion was proceeding and the question now is whether that intervention of time saves the place of this motion on the order paper. That is the difficult point which is involved; whether the point of order, having been in fact entertained, and the time having lapsed, allows the hon. member to escape the consequences of the irregularity of his course. In fact the order was read, but had not been disposed of, and subsection 3 of standing order 19 states positively that all orders not disposed of at the adjournment of the house, shall be postponed to the next sitting day without a motion to that effect. Should I interfere with the order as it stands today on the order paper? To do so I should have to cancel all that which was done on the last day, and I do not think hon. members would expect me to take that course.
I should like to present one other point of view before disposing of the matter, and then ask for the opinions of hon. members regarding the difficulty involved.
I am satisfied that when an order is read, it is not before the house, until the motion

has been moved. Beauchesne says, in citation No. 380, to which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) referred, that when a bill comes up for second reading in its proper course, and one of the clerks at the table reads the order aloud, the member in charge of the measure will then move its second reading. I accept that as a correct statement of normal practice. Similarly, I accept as a statement of normal practice that which is contained in citation 385;
If, when the order of the day is read at the table, no motion be made for the second reading, or other stage of the bill, or for its postponement, it becomes a dropped order.
However, I point this situation out for hon. members' consideration: After an order is read there may be an intervening procedure before a motion is made. It is within the rights of any member of the house, other than the member whose duty it is to move the motion, to raise a point of order. For instance, the point of order which we are considering now could well be taken after the reading of an order but before the consequent motion; in other words, the point that the order of the day is not properly on the order paper. The point of order arises as soon as the order is read, and before the motion is proceeded with.
As another instance, a point of order might well be taken under standing order 74, that the bill was not printed in both English and French and therefore could not yet be read the second time. This point of order could well be taken after the Clerk had read the order at the table, but before the motion had been put. If such a point of order was taken, it would then have to be discussed. The discussion would then have intervened and prolonged the time during which the mover of the second reading of the bill must move his motion, or decide not to proceed with it. In fact, that is what did happen in respect of this particular bill, C-30. I have said it could happen, and it did happen.
The difficulty involved is, that what did intervene was something which should not have been allowed to intervene. It having been allowed to intervene, I do not intend unless hon. members can persuade me otherwise, to alter the effect of the rule as contained in subsection 3 of standing order 19 which would allow the order to keep its place on the order paper.
If any hon. member has any suggestion to contribute to this aspect of the problem, with which I am faced, and before I dispose of the matter, I should like to hear him.


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker, it is a maxim of equity that he who
Private Bills
seeks justice must do justice. I suggest that has a pertinent effect in respect of this particular point, because the point of order is a bogus one, and was raised by the hon. member who was called upon to move the particular bill. The meaning of that maxim surely must be that if a person wishes to rely on the rules, in order to advance his cause, he must, in the terms of that phrase, do justice himself. The corollary of that is that he is estopped from relying on the technicality of a point of order if he raises the point of order himself.
In regard to the question as to whether the point of order had been entertained, I do not think the house can properly be seized with a bogus point of order, particularly one raised by the hon. member who was moving the motion. I suggest, therefore, that the point of order which was raised has no effect at all, and the situation is simply as though the passage of time had lapsed, and it was not possible for the Speaker in the time that intervened to make a ruling in respect of it.
Your Honour mentioned another course during your remarks, as to whether any hon. member had objected to the member raising this point of order. It will be noted that at page 5083 of Hansard for May 19, 1961 it is recorded right after the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said "Then I should like to raise a point of order," that an hon. member said "The order has been called". I suggest, in view of that, it was impossible or improper for the hon. member for Skeens to raise a point of order against himself.
Returning again to the original point-he who seeks justice must do justice-I suggest in procedural terms, this means that if one seeks to rely on the procedures of this house, or of the courts, one must not offend those procedures one seeks to invoke to support his cause. I suggest that is exactly what the hon. member has sought to do by talking out, in effect, his own bill.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make two brief comments. First of all, when the hon. member for Skeena rose to the point of order, it would have been impossible for any other member to rise on another point of order, because he would not be recognized. I suggest, therefore, this is the first opportunity we have had to do so.
The second point I should like to mention is that the hon. member for Skeena referred to the procedure followed on April 21 in respect to Bill No. C-20 amending the Small Loans Act. He suggested the procedure followed at that time was very similar to the present situation, in that when this bill was called for second reading the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) the mover of the

Private Bills
bill, said "Stand." The hon. member for As-siniboia, the leader of the party of which the hon. member for Skeena is a member, obviously had in mind very properly standing order 19 (2), which states that orders may be allowed to stand; but the point that is indicated very clearly-and the hon. member for Skeena gave this particular citation-is that the hon. member for Assiniboia realized that when the orders were called he had to take some sort of positive action. He had to request that the order be stood over, proceed with the motion for second reading or allow it to become a dropped order.
I suggest that by doing nothing the hon. member for Skeena has permitted his order to become a dropped order. The fact that he raised this point of order and that it was impossible for other members to intervene I suggest would have no effect on the ruling, Mr. Speaker. Your clear decision is to point out to the hon. member that he should have acted as soon as the order was called. Then, if he wished to raise a point of order, that was the time to do it. Since he chose to take no stand I would suggest that it became a dropped order, and that is the way it should stand now.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I raise another point which was not developed in the original discussion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I understand you have given your ruling. Now the hon. member for Skeena is going to compound his error of last week by speaking to a point of order and thus prevent the moving of his own motion.


Mr. Speaker:: No.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Surely, that is not so, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: We have been speaking to the point raised with respect to his action and I think he is entitled to say something. However, I think I have heard ample to permit me to dispose of the matter.


Charles Benjamin Howard: May I be permitted-


Mr. Speaker:: I would not like this hour to expire without this matter being disposed of. It is an important matter and it points up the necessity of following the rules of the house at all times. There is no question that when the order was called, notwithstanding there were only a few minutes left, it was the duty of the hon. member to move his motion, if he wished to proceed with it, or allow it to stand. However, he did intervene and-


Charles Benjamin Howard: May I speak on the point
of order now?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I have had ample assistance on the point.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Have I not the right to speak on the point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will refer to the rules he will find that the Speaker may permit such debate on a point of order as he sees fit. I have come to the conclusion that as the hon. member used improperly the opportunity given to him to move his motion, to raise a point of order against his own progress in the matter, and as it was permitted at the time, I cannot correct it now. The effect of that is that the order for second reading now comes before the house. It has been read from the table; it has not been put to the house in the usual way by my declaring that the motion has been made and seconded, and opening the debate, nor has it been stood. In the circumstances, I think I must do that now unless any hon. members wish to take the course which is open to them with respect to my disposition with regard to this rather difficult point of order. It has served a purpose. At least it emphasizes the need for proceeding in accordance with the rules at all times and not to allow irregular proceedings to intervene and take an improper advantage. I therefore find that the order paper is correct, and the order having been read today I call on the hon. member for Skeena to propose his motion.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I raise a question of privilege. Surely the rights of myself and the privileges of this house have been abused by hon. members opposite in having ample opportunity to express points of view, some of which reflect upon me


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has allowed me to intervene, and it is too late to raise the question now. Unless he moves his motion it will be dropped.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Then, Mr. Speaker, at your suggestion it will be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the order is dropped.
Order dropped.


Charles Benjamin Howard: This is an arrogant government if there ever was one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-31, an act respecting the printing of negotiable instruments in the English and the French languages.-Mr. Pigeon.
Gordon Minto Churchill: I am prepared to call it six o'clock at this stage.


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Arnold Peters: Proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In the absence of the hon. member for Joliette-l'Assomption-Mont-calm-


Some hon. Members:: Dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Order dropped.
Order dropped.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-32, an act to amend the Criminal Code (nuisance).-Mr. Herridge.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: May the hon. member call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is on the horns of a dilemma. He must proceed or drop the matter.


Mr. Habel:: On a point of order, two clocks say six o'clock and a third says that it is a
Business of the House
couple of minutes to six. All the clocks in the house should show the same time.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member has a point of order. If two clocks say it is six o'clock and the other one does not, which one is the official clock? Is the house prepared to agree that it is six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.