1961-06-07

VETERANS AFFAIRS

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

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that several departments of government are concerned with respect to certain events which have received a large degree of prominence in today's press, I have a statement to make. The house is aware, of course, of reports that have been given prominence and in some cases accompanied by what might be called scare headlines concerning difficulties being experienced in procuring special high capacity suction pumps for unloading certain ships carrying grain from eastern Canadian ports to communist China.
I would point out immediately that the absence of available suction pumps applies only to tankers and not to freight or cargo ships.
The case in question is quite different from some cases which have caused trouble in the past because some earlier cases implied an assertion, as interpreted by Canada, of the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction and were regarded as interference with Canadian sovereignty. In the current case the product in question is a United States product and the supplying firm is a United States firm located in the United States, and it has no Canadian subsidiary.
As we expect others to respect our sovereignty, so we must recognize the right of the United States, in its wisdom, to legislate and regulate with respect to its products and the course to be followed by its nationals. However, we are concerned over any action that would affect Canada's important grain trade, and immediately the matter came to our attention yesterday afternoon we proceeded to do everything possible to facilitate the continued and continuing movement of grain to China.
Discussions have already taken place at the official level; Ambassador Heeney has seen those officers of the United States government
concerned with this particular matter, and a review is being undertaken as a result. In the meantime the government has taken steps to investigate any existing sources of supply, either in Canada or in other countries, or to develop an alternative source quickly within Canada for this unusual equipment.
The high-powered pumps that are used in order to unload tankers are not standard equipment. The need to have such pumps on board ship arises principally when the port of delivery has not been in the habit of receiving large shipments, especially in large tankers, and therefore does not have suitable equipment installed on the docks.
Inquiries have been made in the United Kingdom and in Europe through the trade commissioner service as to alternatives, and a representative of the Department of Trade and Commerce is this morning conferring at a plant in the province of Ontario which is at the moment the most likely prospective producer. We believe that Canadian corporations can produce the necessary suction pumps, and the company in question to which I have made reference assures us that it can produce suction pumps with a capacity of 300 tons per day compared with a capacity of 600 tons a day for the equipment in question produced in the United States. Meetings are taking place this morning with the Canadian shipping federation to work out arrangements for determining the volume and timing of requirements and for co-ordinating the necessary procurement or production. I should add that the owners and operators of the ships involved recognize the responsibilities they have under their charter arrangements with the Chinese importer. The government will facilitate and co-ordinate their efforts in every appropriate manner.
The government is determined that these grain shipments, which are of such importance to Canada, shall proceed without interruption and without delay. So far shipments from the east and west coasts of Canada have been well up to schedule, and we intend to maintain the movement in question. In so far as the Canadian company is concerned, we are assured that the necessary pumps can be delivered within three weeks, and we have advised the shipping companies accordingly as to the availability of these pumps. I would emphasize that there is no basis whatsoever for the suggestion that this event will in any way endanger the continued carrying out of
5962	HOUSE OF
Absence of Grain Unloading Pumps the agreement made between the Chinese government and the wheat board. That should be emphasized. This has been blown up into a very much more serious incident than the facts would warrant.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has stated, very considerable publicity has been given to the question he has raised in his statement. That publicity in fact, Mr. Speaker, extended to an announcement that the Prime Minister himself would be speaking about the matter. In view of what the Prime Minister has said and the information he has given us, it is unfortunate indeed that this publicity should have extended to such headlines as "Canadian Protest is Planned". Indeed, Mr. Speaker, one report said that Canada planned to make "the strongest possible representations to the United States".
I gather from what the Prime Minister has said that there is no question of a protest or representations because, if I understood him aright, in this particular incident the United States treasury was enforcing its own law against a United States company. It is unfortunate that this kind of difficulty could not have been resolved without this kind of publicity.
Perhaps one way in which this matter could be settled is the way the Prime Minister has mentioned, that of having these suctions pumps made in Canada in time. If that is not possible, I think another way in which the matter could be solved to the satisfaction of all concerned would be by having the Canadian Commercial Corporation become the purchaser of the pumps in question. In that case it would be a transaction between governments, and the United States law would not be involved in any way. The pumps could then be made available to the ships in question for the unloading of Canadian grain.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, we have enough difficulties and enough real problems between our two countries at the present time to do our best to avoid the manufacture of issues of this kind.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the need to speed up grain deliveries from western Canada to the export markets of the world I do not feel that this issue has been blown up beyond proper proportions. I think it is a reflection on the relations between Canada and the United States-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: -that we should be subjected to this kind of treatment which will interfere and which does interfere with the speedy


export of Canadian grain following the conclusion of an agreement with China.
I do not think there is any doubt that the United States had the right in law to take this action. I am not saying that the United States does not have the sovereign right to take this action. Nevertheless, taking this action toward a friendly country and an ally, as we are, I think is a mistake, and I hope that the representations that have been made will result in this equipment being provided immediately.
This is not the first instance of interference in the sale and delivery of grain to the China market. We have had instances reported in the newspapers where milling companies in Canada which are subsidiaries of United States corporations refused to accept flour contracts and sell flour in the China market.
We naturally express the hope that if it is necessary for Canada to produce this equipment, it can be done within a very, very short time. Even a delay of three weeks in the production of this equipment may delay the delivery of the additional quantity of grain for this year, being 28 million bushels of wheat and 17 million bushels of barley. Mr. Speaker, the quota situation on the prairies is much worse today than it was a year ago-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should not take advantage of his right of comment to enter into debate about the wheat situation on the prairies.


Hazen Robert Argue: This emphasizes, Mr. Speaker, the urgency-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I warned the hon. member, and I expect him to observe the warning.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I naturally do not want to enter into any controversy, but I am glad to see the interest that the hon. gentleman now shows in the sale to China which previously he said did not exist.
However, I would say that if we are able to secure production in Canada within three weeks, that will not in any way hold up the course of delivery of the shipments. What we will do in that case is this, and it will cover the situation completely. The production will take place; it will cost a little more, but we will be able to deliver this necessary equipment by air or whatever means is necessary to whatever port in China delivery is to be made. It will be some three or four weeks before this particular equipment will be necessary.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Not only has the Prime Minister made a second statement on motions, but he has said that in remarks I made on a previous occasion I said that this sale did not exist.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: That statement is not correct. It is not in accordance with the facts. What I had said, and I think it is in order that I should be given this opportunity to reply to this statement-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the house will recognize the fact that the hon. member has a right to make a personal explanation. I will hear him.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, at no time did I say that this sale did not exist. What I said at the time-and I said it again this morning-was that there was a firm agreement for a sale of 28 million bushels of wheat this year and 17 million bushels of barley. That is what we are interested in. I have said, and this statement has since been confirmed by the chairman of the Canadian wheat board, that the balance is not a firm contract.



STARRED QUESTIONS


BILL OF RIGHTS


Mr. Tardif: 1.	Have copies of the bill of rights been printed for distribution to the public?
2.	If so, is anything except the bill itself included in the printing?
3.	How many copies have been prepared?
4.	On what basis are they being distributed?
5.	Has the bill of rights been inscribed on calfskin?
6.	If so, was anything else inscribed with the text of the bill itself?
7.	What was the cost of preparing this document, and what is its purpose?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, may this question stand in the absence of the Secretary of State.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Question stands.



POSTAL EMPLOYEES, OTTAWA  VOTES ON SHIFT WORK

Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1958, have any votes been conducted amongst the Post Office Department employees in the Besserer street post office concerning the question of shift work for the said employees; and, if so, with respect to each such vote (a) upon what dates was each conducted (b) amongst which employees was each conducted (c) what were the results in each case (d) were
Starred Questions
any of the ballots marked with a number or other distinguishing mark, and what are the details surrounding this matter?
2.	Have any steps been taken to put into effect a program of shift work consistent with the results of the said vote, and, if so, what are the details of such steps?
3.	If such steps as mentioned in part 2 have not been taken, what is the reason?
4.	Under what shift arrangements do postal employees work in the main post offices in each of the following cities; Montreal, Winnipeg, Toronto, Vancouver, Hamilton?
5.	Is any overtime payment made to employees of the post office department who work overtime, and, if so, what are the details about such payments?
6.	How long a period of time elapses between the pay period within which a post office employee works overtime, and the pay period within which the said employee receives payment for the said overtime work?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question occupies three and a half pages of singlespaced typing, which I think the house would not want me to read. Could the question be made an order for return?


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



DR. OSTIN CANTIN, HEALTH AND WELFARE-TRIPS ABROAD

Mr. Valade: 1.	How many trips abroad have been made by Dr. Ostin Cantin (who is the administrative officer of the Department of National Health and Welfare in the harbour of Montreal) since April 1, 1958?
2.	Which countries has he visited, in what capacity did he do so, for how long was he away, what were the purposes of his trips, and what was the cost thereof?
3.	How many other persons connected with the said department in the harbour of Montreal have been sent to Europe in the carrying out of their duties?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
Dr. Ostin Cantin, medical officer in charge, quarantine, immigration medical and sick mariners services, Montreal, has made two trips abroad.
2.	The countries visited by Dr. Cantin were East Pakistan and Hong Kong. The purpose of these trips was to act as medical escort to sick deportees. Both trips were made at no cost to the Department of National Health and Welfare. Dr. Cantin's absence on the first trip was from November 17 to December 21, 1959 and on the second trip from January 25 to February 28, 1961. In each case he was on official duty for approximately one week. The time Dr. Cantin was absent beyond that required for escort duty was taken as earned leave and entirely at his own expense.
3.	None.

Starred Questions



OLD AGE SECURITY CHEQUE ENVELOPES

Mr. Herridge: 1.	Do the monthly cheques mailed to those in receipt of old age security have typed on the envelopes the words "old age pensions"?
2.	If so: (a) have representations been made to the department concerning the removal of these words on the grounds that they offend those in receipt of old age security? (b) for what reason are these words put on these envelopes? (c) has consideration been given to removing these words?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
1.	The envelopes containing the monthly old age security pension cheques have the following printing on them: "Government of Canada; District Treasury Office; Department of National Health and Welfare; Family Allowances; Federal Old Age Pensions."
2.	(a) No representations have been made to the department for the removal of the words "federal old age pensions".
(b)	The Old Age Security Act provides that the cheque is the instrument issued in payment of a pension, and the words "federal old age pensions" have been on the envelopes since the inception of the act in January, 1952.
(c)	In the absence of representation no consideration has been given to the removal of these words. That is not to say that consideration could not be given if there were occasion for it.



MRS. WILHELMINA ROBINSON, HAMILTON   ESTATE TAXES

Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	Was the case of Mrs. Wilhelmina Robinson, 1070 King street, Hamilton, Ontario, brought to the personal attention of the minister or the acting minister?
2.	Under what specific section of the Estate Tax Act (1958) was Mrs. Robinson ordered to pay estate taxes on a gift made to the estate by her late husband's former employer?
3.	Has the government taken, or is it now taking, any steps to amend the provision under which Mrs. Robinson had to pay estate taxes on money which was not actually part of the estate at the time of her husband's death?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The answer to this question is as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Section 3, subsection l(L)(i) of the Estate Tax Act.
3.	This involves government policy, and any announcement will be made in the usual manner.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION, NEW DRUGS- STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE

Mr. Howard: How many copies of the statement of evidence by the director of investigation and research of

the combines investigation branch, regarding the selling and pricing policies of certain pharmaceutical houses in respect of new types of drugs, were sent to interested groups and people by the restrictive trade practices commission, and how many replies have been received?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is that copies of the statement were sent to 225 organizations and individuals. Acknowledgments have been received from 30 of these organizations and individuals and 17 of them have indicated a desire to make or are considering the making of representations to the restrictive trade practices commission.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to revert to question No. 376 for the purpose of supplementing the answer I gave. I think I said that 17 organizations and individuals had indicated their desire to make recommendations to the commission. I should have said that acknowledgments have been received from 30 organizations and individuals of whom 17 are considered making representations.



C.N.R. OFFICERS DIRECTORS IN OTHER COMPANIES

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Have any of the senior executive officers of the Canadian National Railways, including the vice-presidents, any directorships in other companies or corporations?
2.	If so, which executives, and which companies, since what dates?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1 and 2. The policy of the company with respect to the subject matter referred to in the question is as follows.
Under the Canadian National Railways Act the chairman of the board of directors of the railway is precluded from becoming a director of an outside company, but there is no similar legal restriction applicable to other railway officers.
In these circumstances the general view of the board of directors of the railway is that such other officers should not be prevented from accepting outside directorships provided that acceptance will not involve any conflict of interest or interfere with the carrying out of their duties with the Canadian National. The board considers it to be advisable, however, that before an officer accepts an outside directorship the matter should be referred to the president for decision on the facts of the particular case.

The records of the company as to this date indicate that officers holding directorships in commercial corporations are as follows:
D. C. Gonder, vice-president, Atlantic region, director of Canadian Premier Life Insurance Co., Winnipeg, Man.
H.	W. Craig, traffic manager, foreign freight, director of James Wilson & Co. Ltd., 731 Common St., Montreal, Que. (steamship supplies).



SALE PRICE OF CF-100 PLANES

Mr. Badanai: I.	What was the price paid for each of the eleven CF-lOOs sold by crown assets disposal corporation to J. L. McMaster of Westbourne, Manitoba?
2.	Were there other bids and what were they?
3.	Who made the decision that these aircraft were obsolete and of no further use in our defence?
4.	Who authorized the disposal of the eleven CF-lOOs?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: 1.	220,000 pounds of contaminated scrap consisting of eleven airframes and engines were sold to Westbourne Supply, Westbourne, Manitoba, for a lot price of $3,413.13.
2.	Yes. They were:
Lot bids
American Metal Steel Co.
Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba $2,152.95
Syrota Bros. Metal and Cartage Ltd., Winnipeg		1,500.00
Sabre Industries Ltd., Winnipeg	 103.00
3.	Minister of National Defence (recommendation of chiefs of staff).
4.	The scrap was declared surplus to the requirements of the Department of National Defence and disposed of under the Surplus Crown Assets Act according to usual disposal policies of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.



TRAVELLING EXPENSES, POSTMASTER GENERAL

Mr. Denis: 1.	What has been the cost to the federal government of the travelling expenses of the postmaster general during the month of May 1961?
2.	What means of transport were supplied to him, free of charge, by the government?


William McLean Hamilton: The answer is as follows:
1.	$317.33.
2.	Department of Transport aircraft:	17
May, Ottawa to Montreal and return; 21 May, Ottawa to Calgary; 26 May, Ottawa to Peterborough; 27 May, Peterborough to Toronto.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to raise a question of privilege. The question just asked and answered deals with the travelling expenses of a particular cabinet
Starred Questions
minister for a particular month, and the answer is given as a certain sum of money.
On November 25, 1960 I Med a question asking for travelling expenses incurred by other members of the government between September 1, 1960 and October 31, 1960. Though the dates are different, both these questions deal with travelling expenses. This question of mine, No. 28, was made an order for return which was filed on May 25. I have a copy of sessional paper 216(a) which reads as follows with respect to my question of November 25:
There is no official record from which the information called for by this order of the house can be drawn. Under a well established practice expenses incurred by cabinet ministers when travelling on official business are paid out of departmental administration or other appropriate votes without any accounting being required therefor, irrespective of whether or not an advance is made.
My question of privilege affecting every member of this house is that incorrect information was given to me in answer to my question No. 28. That is substantiated by the answer which has now been given by the Postmaster General in reply to a specific question addressed to him on the subject of his own travelling expenses.
While it is normal to found a motion on a question of privilege, and I think in this case the motion should be one of censure on the government for refusing to file information as ordered by the house, I should like first of all to have some guidance from you, Mr. Speaker as to whether or not this question of privilege is well founded.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The best advice which could be given to the hon. member would be to read the return itself and not to confuse the facts. The Postmaster General has given an answer to starred question No. 381 concerning travelling expenses of one minister in a particular month. That information is within the knowledge of the department, and the minister, who is head of that department, has given the answer.
The hon. member for Skeena is now referring to a question asked last autumn concerning the travelling expenses of a number of ministers, indeed, I gather, of all members of the government. That necessarily must be an order for return because at that stage it is information which has to be gathered from various departments. After three years in the house the hon. member must know that where information has to be drawn from more than one department the question must, according to the invariable practice of this house, be made an order for return. This was done.
At a particular stage, when the public accounts are prepared, information of the kind

Starred Questions
sought by the hon. member can be obtained from one source, but for current months it must be drawn from the various departments concerned and accordingly an order for return has to be made.
The hon. member is complaining of something which he has not taken the trouble to read and understand. The answer he was given is a correct one and in accordance with the practice of this house. I am sure that is the understanding of all other hon. members.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingaie):: Perhaps I might say a word on the point raised by the Minister of Finance. If I correctly understood the hon. member for Skeena the return stated that this information was not available in the government records. That is the basis of his point of privilege, not the fact that his question was made an order for return and that the answer was delayed. As the Minister of Finance correctly stated, that is the only course which could have been taken to deal with a question of that kind. But surely it is misleading the house to say that this information is not available and cannot be obtained, and the Postmaster General himself has contradicted this statement by the answer he has just given. It seems to me that the Postmaster General out of his own mouth has convicted the government of contempt of parliament in making such a return.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Evidently the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is determined to add to the confusion which was exhibited by the hon. member for Skeena. As a former minister, he must know the law in regard to the matter of accounting with respect to travelling expenses of ministers. He must know that. Why does he seek this morning to create confusion? The fact is that the statement contained in the return made to the hon. member for Skeena is a correct statement of the law. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate must know that from his own experience.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, since the minister has chosen to read me a lecture about what I must know as a former member of the government, I should have the right to reply to his observations.


Mr. Speaker:: I would not wish to have the discussion prolonged at this point. The difficulty arises out of answers given at considerable intervals of time. There does not appear to be urgency attached to it, and I should like to look at the returns and answers and consider the hon. member's point further before indicating whether he would have the right to proceed with a motion. If the house will permit me to reserve a decision on the matter, perhaps for several days, I think that will be the appropriate course.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then I should like to raise a question of privilege affecting my own rights as a member of the house. The Minister of Finance has chosen to make certain allegations as to what is within my own knowledge, and it is within my knowledge and recollection as a former member of the government and of treasury board that on many occasions the previous government furnished information precisely of the character asked for by the hon. member without any kind of excuse such as was offered in this case.



ROBERT E. AMARON, CENSUS STAFF, MONTREAL

Mr. Denis: 1.	Has the government requested the services of one Robert E. Amaron to work on the census of Canada in Montreal?
2.	If so:	(a) what are his duties and salary?
(b) was the said Mr. Amaron president of the young Progressive Conservatives of Canada? (c) what other federal position, if any, does he hold?


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Because any information required in order to reply to part 2(c) must be secured from other government agencies and departments, the reply to this question should be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



PAUL EMILE LESAGE, CENSUS STAFF, QUEBEC

Mr. Deschatelets: 1.	Has the federal government employed one Paul Emile Lesage of Mont Laurier, Quebec, to work on the census of Canada?
2.	H so:	(a) what are his duties and salary?
(b) is the said Paul Emile Lesage the defeated Conservative candidate in the past by-election in the county of Labelle? (c) what other federal government position, if any, does he hold?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, for the reason I gave in reply to question No. 382, this question should be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



C.N.R. HOTELS GENERAL MANAGER  JASPER PARK LODGE ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Peters: 1.	Has the general manager of the Canadian National Hotels, or any special representative of this man, spent the hotel season for 1959 and 1960 at Jasper park lodge?
2.	If so, what are the duties of such a person?
3.	What arrangements are made for the cost of his or her board and room?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the management of the Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1,	2 and 3. The general manager of hotels spent part of the 1959 and 1960 season there

as part of his normal supervision of the hotel system and in the regular performance of his duties.



MACDONALD HOTEL, EDMONTON  SPECIAL STAFF PRIVILEGES

Mr. Fisher: 1.	In 1959 or 1960, did the Canadian National Railways investigation department send anyone from Montreal to examine complaints about special or unique privileges given to any personnel on the staff of the Macdonald hotel, Edmonton?
2.	If so, what results, if any, came from the investigation?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the management of the Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1 and 2. The work of the company's investigation department is regarded as a matter of internal management, and that disclosure of its activities would be prejudicial to the interests of the company.



POST OFFICE CONTRACT, BEAUCEVILLE EST, QUE.

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 387 -Mr. Racine:
1.	Has the contract for the construction of a public building to be used as a post office at Beauceville Est, county of Beauce, been awarded?
2.	If so, to whom was such contract awarded?
Mr. Y. R. Tasse (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.



INDIAN BAND, CHRISTIAN ISLAND    REQUEST FOR BARGE AND TELEPHONE SERVICE

Mr. Richard (Ottawa East): 1.	Has a request been received from the Indian band of Christian island reserve for a barge or scow to carry truck loads of lumber from the island to the mainland?
2.	If so, what disposition has been made of this request?
3.	Has telephone service been established between Christian island and the mainland?
4.	If so, who has access to the telephone, and at what hours?
5.	Is any provision made for a pay telephone which would be available at nights and on holidays?
6.	If not, for what reason?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	No action has been taken on this request as the barge presently in use is considered to be sufficiently large to handle the present production of lumber. Should conditions change, consideration will be given to the band's request.
3.	There is a radiotelephone service between Christian island and the mainland. That is Midland, Ontario, which is rented from
Starred Questions
Georgian Bay Airways. Arrangements are being made to rent an improved service from the Bell Telephone Company.
4.	The telephone is located in the Indian agency office and is for the use of the staff, although it can be used by the general public in cases of emergency. The agency office is open from Monday to Friday inclusive between 8.30 a.m. and 5.15 p.m.
5.	No.
6.	The department has approached the Bell Telephone company in regard to the installation of a pay radiotelephone on Christian island for public use. However, the installation would be costly and would involve certain technical difficulties. The matter now rests with the Indian band council to decide whether they are willing to pay the costs and assume responsibility for the protection of the equipment.



PUBLIC ROAD, POORMAN INDIAN RESERVE, SASK.

Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Is there a public road across Poorman Indian reserve, No. 88, in Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, when was this road built, and by whom?
3.	Was the land on which the road was built surrendered for that purpose?
4.	If not, who has jurisdiction over the road, and how is the jurisdiction exercised?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
1.	No. All reserve roads are private and still form part of the over-all reserve acreage.
2,	3 and 4. Not applicable.
{Later:]
On the orders of the day:


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question supplementary to starred question No. 389 which she answered earlier today, about a road across the Poorman Indian reserve. Can the hon. lady say whether there is a road there which is used by the public, and whether it would be competent for the band to close the road against public use should it so desire? It may be that the hon. lady would wish to take this question as notice.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think I had better take it as notice because of the implications involved.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND

Mr. McMillan: 1.	At the latest available date. In respect to the unemployment insurance fund, what was the face value and market value of (a) securities held in the fund (b) securities pledged for loans to the fund?
2.	What is the total amount of these loans?

Starred Questions
3.	What amount of these loans is still on hand?
4.	What federal contributions have been made to the unemployment insurance fund during this fiscal year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, all answers are as of May 31, 1961.
1.	(a) Par value $63,713,500. Market value $54,776,325. (b) Par value $181,089,000. Market value $147,018,817.50.
2.	$140,500,000.
3.	I am not clear what the hon. member means when he refers to loans "still on hand". I can only interpret that as meaning in eifect what question No. 2 asks and, if so, the answer is the same. If that is not what the hon. member meant, perhaps he would clarify the question and I can answer it further.
4.	$8,059,584.96.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Speaker, by that part of the question I referred to the balance still on hand.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member will submit his question the information will be given.



GOLD PLATED SYRINGE USED BY AGRICULTURE MINISTER

Mr. Leduc: 1.	What was the cost of gold plating the syringe used by the Minister of Agriculture in injecting a black and white milk cow?
2.	Did the Department of Agriculture issue a press release on this event?
3.	If so, how many issues of this release were circulated, and at what cost?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
1.	$5.
2.	Yes.
3.	Copies were sent to all news outlets throughout Canada, including dairy newspapers, farm press, radio and television stations. This was done as part of the normal operations of the information division and it is impossible to segregate the cost of this particular operation. In all there have been eight press releases over the past two or three months regarding the completion of a $50 million program to make every area of Canada free of bovine tuberculosis, with its resulting benefit to the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL-ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL

Mr. Deschaielels: 1. Have any persons been brought into the government service for the purposes of preparing for Canada's centennial?

2. If so, who are these persons, and what are their specific duties?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, the answer to both parts of this question is no, not yet.



CUSTOMS AND IMMIGRATION BUILDINGS, HIGH FALLS

Mr. Badanai: 1.	Will new customs and immigration buildings be constructed at the new proposed border crossing which is being moved from Pigeon river, Ontario, to a new site at High falls, or will the old buildings be moved to the new site?
2.	What is the estimated cost to the federal government of construction of new buildings, or moving of the old buildings to the new site?
3.	Will the present boundary crossing be closed for traffic after the relocation?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
1.	A new customs immigration highway office building and a new customs examining warehouse will be constructed at the site of the new bridge over the Pigeon river at High falls.
2.	According to the Department of Public Works, which is arranging the contract, the estimated cost is $190,000.
3.	If necessary, with service according to requirements.



COUNTY OF WEST ABITIBI


Mr. Leduc: During the cleaning operations on the Dagenais river and the C6te creek, in the township of Palmarolle, county of West Abitibi, in 1958 and 1959, what has been the amount of wages paid by the Department of Public Works to (a) Emilien Begin of Palmarolle (b) Jos. Morin of Palmarolle?


Yvon-Roma Tassé: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
(a)	To Mr. Emilien Begin, $824.44.
(b)	Mr. Joseph Morin was not on the payroll.



REDISTRIBUTION PROCEDURE

Mr. Martin (Timmins): 1.	In the years 1958, 1959, and 1960, did the government give consideration to changing redistribution procedure, including the creation of a redistribution commission or commissions?
2.	In the year 1961, has the government given consideration to changing redistribution procedure, including the creation of a redistribution commission or commissions?
3.	Has the government given or is it giving consideration to changing redistribution procedure, including the creation of a redistribution commission or commissions, before the dissolution of this parliament?
4.	If not, has consideration been given to permitting the 1952 redistribution to continue in effect,

until a royal commission or a special committee reports on alternative procedure and formulae for redistribution?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in regard to parts 1 and 2 of this question, it would be improper for me to answer as to whether the government as such has given consideration to any such matter unless and until a proper announcement of policy is made. However, I should like to say that thought has been given to the procedure to be followed in connection with redistribution. I should not wish that answer to create any impression that we have reached a conclusion now on the matter or are tending toward any particular change.
In regard to parts 3 and 4, I should not of course be prepared to give any commitment regarding a future policy which would imply a decision as to whether or not redistribution would be completed before the dissolution of this parliament. However, it is obvious that it will be some considerable time before the results of the current census are available for use in redistribution by whatever procedure may be followed.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1958, have any votes been conducted amongst the Post Office Department employees in the Besserer street post office concerning the question of shift work for the said employees; and, if so, with respect to each such vote (a) upon what dates was each conducted
(b)	amongst which employees was each conducted
(c)	what were the results in each case (d) were any of the ballots marked with a number or other distinguishing mark, and what are the details surrounding this matter?
2.	Have any steps been taken to put into effect a program of shift work consistent with the results of the said vote, and, if so, what are the details of such steps?
3.	If such steps as mentioned in part 2 have not been taken, what is the reason?
4.	Under what shift arrangements do postal employees work in the main post offices in each of the following cities: Montreal, Winnipeg, Toronto, Vancouver, Hamilton?
5.	Is any overtime payment made to employees of the Post office Department who work overtime, and, if so, what are the details about such payments?
6.	How long a period of time elapses between the pay period within which a post office employee works overtime, and the pay period within which the said employee receives payment for the said overtime work?


William McLean Hamilton: Return tabled.


ROBERT E. AMARON, CENSUS STAFF, MONTREAL
Mr. Denis: 1. Has the government requested the services of one Robert E. Amaron to work on the census of Canada in Montreal?
Motions for Papers
2. If so: (a) what are his duties and salary? (b) was the said Mr. Amaron president of the young Progressive Conservatives of Canada? (c) what other federal position, if any, does he hold?


PAUL EMILE LESAGE, CENSUS STAFF, QUEBEC
Mr. Deschatelets: 1.	Has the federal government employed one Paul Emile Lesage of Mont Laurier, Quebec, to work on the census of Canada?
2.	If so: (a) what are his duties and salary? (b) is the said Paul Emile Lesage the defeated Conservative candidate in the past by-election in the county of Labelle? (c) what other federal government position, if any does he hold?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 137
Mr. Pitman:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the federal government or any agency or branch thereof and any other person, corporation, organization, or government since January 1, 1959, dealing with the question of the assigning of a D.V.A. welfare office to any place in the municipality of Peterborough.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is acceptable, subject to any reservations on the part of any other governments.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation requested by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 139-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of circular 502 for the year 1960, used by the Post Office Department.
William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, this particular document is a directive which circulates only within the department among employees, and as such is not officially available for general distribution. I should be delighted, however, to make it available to the hon. member in his capacity as a member of this house.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should be in any different class than any other hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to proceed with the motion in view of what the minister has said?


Frank Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member indicates his desire to proceed with the motion.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but having offered to make this document available to the hon. member in his capacity as a member of this

Division
house, under the rules of the house and by precedent it simply is not a document which should be allowed to be tabled.



SALE CONTRACT FOR CF-100 PLANES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 140-Mr. Mcllraith:
For a copy of the contract between Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and The Westbourne Supply Company, Westbourne, Manitoba, concerning the sale of eleven CF-100 fighter planes.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 142-Mr. Carter:
For a copy of the list of monetary awards, not included in the regular pensions list, with dates and particulars, made by the commission of government of Newfoundland and continued by the government of Canada to members of the armed services, and non-combat units such as the merchant navy and forestry units prior to union of Newfoundland with Canada.
Motion agreed to.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called may we revert to motions? I have an announcement that is supposed to be made not only in this house but generally throughout the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister permission to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: On June 2 I reported on the outcome of meetings held in Washington

last week under the auspices of the world bank for the financing of India's foreign exchange requirements during the third five year plan. I now wish to make a similar statement on Pakistan. The consortium meeting was concluded today in Washington. I do not intend to cover all the details set out in the press communique which is being released in the various capitals today. Instead, I shall report on the part Canada has played in the consortium. At the conclusion of my remarks I shall ask for leave to table copies of the communique.
The world bank had calculated that Pakistan's foreign assistance requirements for the next two fiscal years totalled $800 million. The consortium was unable to reach this target figure, but nevertheless agreed on forward commitments for 1961-62 on the basis of which the United States, the world bank and the international development association found it possible to participate, while holding the view that the original two year objective was the appropriate approach. It is their intention accordingly to revert to this plan the next consortium meeting on Pakistan due to take place in the fall.
On the basis of commitments for 1961-62, additional commitments of $320 million were made by members of the consortium, subject of course, as appropriate, to legislative action or other necessary authorization. Canada's share of this was set at $18 million a year, which is made up of $11.5 million in Colombo plan aid and the remainder in export credits in an amount of $12 million over the next two years. These sums are, of course, contingent upon approval by parliament of the Colombo plan grants for the coming year and of the amendments to the Export Credits Insurance Act.
In addition to this form of aid, I would remind the house that Pakistan in the past has been receiving grants of wheat from Canada. Pakistan has requested further shipments of wheat under the Colombo plan in the coming year at the same level as last year and, in anticipation of this, $3.65 million is being set aside for this purpose during 1961-62. The anticipated total figure for Colombo plan aid to Pakistan is thus roughly $15 million for the present fiscal year.
I might mention that the communique will show a figure of $19.8 million as aid previously committed by Canada for Pakistan. I understand that this relates entirely to Canadian Colombo plan programs started in previous fiscal years, and does not require new appropriations. This is the same procedure which has been followed with respect to those amounts shown for other countries under the already committed heading, totalling $229.3 million.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Hon. members will welcome the outcome of the international meeting just concluded in Washington, since this will help Pakistan to meet the balance of payments gap expected for 1961-62 and thus enable the Pakistanis to make essential purchases abroad in order to maintain the momentum initiated during the first year of the second five year plan.
I ask leave, sir, to table two copies of the communique. I have not a French translation of it, since it came to me only a few minutes ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Our attitude toward the announcement the Prime Minister has made with regard to aid to Pakistan is exactly the same as it was toward the announcement he made the other day with regard to aid to India. We support anything the government may be able to do in this regard to help Pakistan, a fellow member of the commonwealth and a staunch supporter of the free world.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: This is the type of international co-operation and action we wholeheartedly endorse. It is the type of action that has been suggested by this group over quite a number of years. We are very pleased, therefore, to hear the proposal contained in the Prime Minister's announcement. We are also glad to see that provision is made for a periodic review of the progress and development of this plan. We think this is an excellent provision to meet changing needs and circumstances and provide opportunity for adjustment as a result of experience.
We are very pleased indeed, and personally I am particularly pleased, to see Canada taking part in another proposal to assist another country within the commonwealth.


INQUIRY AS TO VIOLATIONS OF CEASE FIRE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he can comment on reports that the cease fire in Laos has been violated by both sides, and that the international commission is not in a position to even effectively report on these violations.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as yet I have had no official confirmation of press reports that a pocket of troops loyal to the

Inquiries of the Ministry Vientiane government at Ban Padong in central Laos has been under heavy attack by Pathet Lao forces during the past 24 hours and has now been overrun. However, we have received information from Geneva that the United States delegation there issued a statement today, that the United States has asked for a suspension of the conference pending further instructions from Washington in view of grave violations of the cease fire at Ban Padong.
Since May 16 the international supervisory commission has been seized with the question of breaches of the cease fire at a number of places in Laos including Ban Padong. For more than two weeks the commission has been endeavouring to visit Ban Padong or to send representatives to investigate the reported violation of the cease fire. They have been unable to do so for various reasons.
I can inform the house that a considerable portion of the commission's most recent report to the co-chairmen, that is to the United Kingdom and the Soviet union, dated June 5, deals with visits to sensitive areas. The government in Vientiane has stated that it would accept visits by the commission and was prepared to give all possible assistance within the limits of its material resources. The other two principal parties, on the other hand, have said that visits and investigations can be made only with the agreement of all three Laotian parties.
Another reason given for refusing to take any action is that the Geneva conference has not as yet adopted any principle concerning the activities of the commission. In their report the commissioners indicate that any agreed decision taken by the conference would have a helpful effect. These developments serve to underline the vital importance of a cease fire in Laos which is effectively supervised and controlled.
As I stated in the house on May 30, the Canadian government has been doing its utmost to ensure that a genuine cease fire operates throughout the whole of Laos. To do this the commission must have, first, the co-operation of the parties in Laos and, second, the co-operation of the co-chairmen and other members of the Geneva conference in sustaining and supporting it. Finally, of course, the commission must have the material means to carry out its job.
It may be too early as yet to be sure whether the discussions between President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev over the last week end will help to solve this present difficulty over Laos. I am hopeful that such will be the result of the talks.
[Mr. Green.l


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether he has given any further consideration to the request of the united automobile workers for an interview to discuss the agricultural implement industry with the cabinet?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has not kept up with the times-and that is understandable-as to what has happened here during the last few days. The meeting is being held today.


Hazen Robert Argue: No announcement was made in the house.


AUTOMOBILES-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct to the Prime Minister a question arising out of the great interest of the workers involved and others in Canada in the lagging automobile industry. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is in a position to inform the house when he will make public the Bladen royal commission report.


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker.


REPORTED SEIZURE OF EXPORTS BY CANADIAN CUSTOMS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister give the house information on a so-called unofficial agreement between Canada and the United States by which the Canadian customs last week seized 165 tons of spare parts and base materials, some of which were produced in Canada, from aboard a Cuban vessel destined for Havana, as reported in this morning's Gazette? Can the minister tell the house exactly what items were seized and under what authority these items were seized?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker, I had not seen the report. I will look into the matter, and I shall be glad to report to the house as soon as I have done so.

Inquiries of the Ministry


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. In view of the statement of Mr. James McMaster of Westbourne Supply Company that the Minister of Defence is "all wet" when he states that it would take several hundred thousand dollars each to put in flying condition the CF-100 jets that he bought from Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, and that he has all the parts, would the minister care to comment on this rather unusual and contradictory statement; and can he also inform the house as to the result of the investigation into this matter by the president of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, as was promised the house on June 2?


Donat Raymond: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid Mr. McMaster will have quite a job on his hands in proving that the Minister of National Defence is "all wet".


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is self evident.


Mr. O'Hurley:: In reply to the hon. member's question, may I say that Mr. McMaster has written a personal letter to the president of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation saying he will dispose of the scrap as it was bought, as contaminated scrap. I have here a report from the officials of the national defence technical services unit which states as follows:
On receipt of information that the press were reporting that these aircraft were in a flyable condition the R.C.A.F. technical services unit at Lincoln park, Alberta, were asked to confirm the class and quantity of parts removed from the aircraft prior to their declaration under the category of "contaminated scrap". As you are aware, it is our policy to salvage from aircraft of this class all armaments and classified equipment plus all parts and installed equipments which can be used to support other R.C.A.F. activities. This recovery program has the result of rendering the aircraft completely non-flyable.
The technical services unit confirmed by telephone that the parts specified for removal had in fact been removed. The work was carried out by a Canadian Pacific Air Lines work party and completed work orders are held at the T.S.U. The R.C.A.F. technical NCO at the MacDonald site and the foreman of the C.P.A. work party confirmed to the commanding officer of the T.S.U. that to their personal knowledge the specified parts had been removed.
We still maintain our position that this is just scrap, and that Mr. McMaster has confirmed by letter that he will dispose of this as scrap. I think there is a certain scrap dealer in the country who is amusing himself at the expense of the press.
90205-6-377


INQUIRY AS TO CONTINUED USE OF CF-100 PLANES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. My question arises out of an answer that was given earlier this morning to part 3 of starred question No. 380 on today's order paper. The reply to this part of the question confirmed that the CF-lOO's were obsolete and of no further use for our defence. My question is this. If this is so why are we still retaining five squadrons of them in service?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, these particular 11 aircraft had been used very extensively, and their flying time was exhausted. As a result they were declared surplus and all usable parts were removed. As to the aircraft which are in use in the CF-100 squadrons which are still flying-I think the number is seven or eight-may I say that these aircraft still have a considerable number of flying hours in them and are performing a useful function.
(Translation):


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Laiour (Argenieuil-Deux-Mon-fagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport of which I have given him notice. In view of the work being carried out by the Quebec hydro at the Carillon dam, could the minister make sure that there will be no less than 285 feet, instead of 215, between the two gates of the only lock at that dam?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the Navigable Waters Protection Act stipulates that any public works which are to be carried out in a navigable river and which could interfere in any way with navigation must first be approved by the Department of Transport. I am sure that in this case the Quebec hydro will send the plans in question to my department. Consequently, I wish to assure my hon. friend that the engineers of my department will see to it that no work interferes with navigation.

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS TAX SHARING ARRANGEMENTS-INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Finance whether the discussions with the provincial government with respect to the federal-provincial tax sharing arrangements have now been concluded. If so, how soon does the minister expect to be in a position to introduce the legislation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing further to be reported since I last gave the house a report in reply to a similar question.


CRESTON, B.C.-INQUIRY AS TO ASSISTANCE BY ARMY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. L. McFarlane (Kootenay East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I understand that the flood situation at Creston and in the Wynndel area of East Kootenay in British Columbia continues to be critical. I wonder whether the minister has a report on the situation and what assistance is being given by his department.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have not received a further report today, but the report I received yesterday was to the effect that the water level of the Kootenay river at Creston is nearing the critical level of 25 feet, and is expected to spill over dikes south of Creston in the next 12 hours. Water pressure caused a break in the dikes at Creston. Troops and civilians are seeding the break.
The major concern to provincial authorities is that continual seepage will result in a major break. There are at present 165 troops there. Previously we had some engineers there to give technical advice and assistance, and also a water purification unit. The majority of the troops are now being employed in raising the dike level at Creston and in the area to the south of the town.


NATIONAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Laurier Regnier (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that on Saturday, June 10 Transcona,

a well known railway and industrial centre in the constituency of St. Boniface, will not only celebrate its golden jubilee but also its birth as the newest city in Manitoba, which I believe constitutes a unique historical event in Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: I think I should say something in answer to the hon. member for St. Boniface. While ordinarily such questions do not arise,
I can understand the pride of the hon. gentleman in the fact that this very admirable community is celebrating its fiftieth anniversary contemporaneously with its becoming a city, and I am sure the congratulations of all Canadians will be accorded.


Hazen Robert Argue: In associating myself with the congratulations offered by the Prime Minister I wonder whether the Prime Minister can hold out some hope that the workers in the railway shops in this area will have a reasonably good chance of employment, or whether they are to be laid off as threatened.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is misdirected.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport, in view of the current interest created by stories in the press, if he could indicate whether he has had any discussions with the president of the Canadian National Railways about an alteration in the balance of C.N.R. management, in which at the present time not one of the 17 vice-presidents is a French Canadian.


Léon Balcer: This is a matter strictly for the management of the Canadian National. The government appoints the directors and the chairman of the C.N.R., but the vice presidents are all chosen by the management.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT AND CRIMINAL CODE
Edmund Davie Fulton: the third reading of Bill No. C-97, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
Jay Waldo Monteith: the third reading of Bill No. C-99, to amend the Food and Drugs Act.


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


Jay Waldo Monteith: May we have the yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker?


John Whitney Pickersgill: An hon. member is attempting to speak.
(Translation):


Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few comments to make with regard to the motion for third reading of Bill No. C-99.
When this bill came up in committee of the whole, we did our utmost to improve it. We said we supported the principle of the bill, and now our only hope is that the minister will keep informed of the results of the bill, and that if it can be improved, he will put forward appropriate amendments.
Mr. Speaker, before resuming my seat, I should like to commend the person who first called the attention of the house and of Canada to the existence and seriousness of the goof ball problem. I refer to the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque). In fact, it will be recalled that at the opening of the 1958 session, in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member devoted his whole speech to this problem. He dealt with it conscientiously and boldly despite the jeers of some hon. members who failed to realize the seriousness of the problem.
At every opportunity, the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean renewed his representations, and with every speech, he managed to convince more and more of his colleagues.
Today, when this bill is about to be read a third time, circumstances prevent the hon. member from being in attendance, due to extremely important reasons. I know the minister will join us in commending the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean. Such commendation goes beyond the person of the hon. member and is directed at every private member of the house, of any party, who has strong views and puts them forward stubbornly until they are finally shared by all his colleagues.
That being said, I am pleased to state that I will, of course, support the bill. In fact, the principle of the bill has received the unanimous support of all hon. members.
90205-6-3774
Food and Drugs Act
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: It
is understandable that the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) should wish to pay tribute to his fellow member from Outremont-St. Jean, and of course nobody on this side of the house or in the government has ever sought or desired to take away credit due to any hon. members wherever they sit in the house. Therefore I hope the remarks I have to make will not be taken as detracting from or indicating a lack of appreciation of the interest shown in this subject either by that hon. member or by others who have spoken on the subject or who are supporting the bill.
However, I feel that a factual resume of the steps taken to deal with this problem and bring in the legislation might put the question in its proper perspective. Several years ago reports were received indicating that barbiturates and amphetamines were easily procurable without prescription at a number of retail pharmacy outlets. As a result of studies made at that time it was not considered, however, that there then existed any illicit form of underworld traffic in these substances.
Investigations were subsequently made in an attempt to ascertain the extent to which these drugs could be purchased without prescription in retail stores. As a result of a survey made some four years ago of 2,400 drug stores, approximately half the total number in Canada, evidence was secured which warranted prosecutions being instituted against some 150 pharmacists. I am informed that a number of prosecutions were instituted accordingly.
I think this should be borne in mind more carefully than it has been, because-only as a result of overzealousness on their part, I am sure-some hon. members have sought to create the impression that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, together with the government as a whole, were not interested in this problem, or that he proceeded to deal with it only in response to pressure from one particular source. Notwithstanding the prosecutions which took place it was the opinion of the inspectors, based on their examination at that time, that there was no evidence of widespread illicit traffic in these drugs but, rather, that there were infractions of the regulations calling for their sale only on prescription.
Within the past year and a half other reports have reached us indicating that apart from infractions by retail pharmacists, there

Food and Drugs Act
also existed a form of illicit underworld traffic in these drugs. This information was immediately passed on to the R.C.M.P. who made a thorough investigation, and the results of this investigation clearly establish that such a traffic presently exists, and that it has grown rapidly. Accordingly, well over a year ago detailed consideration began to be given to the preparation of measures designed to be effective in eliminating the underworld traffic and to control the sale of the types of drugs commonly used in goof balls.
Suggestions have been made that there has been delay in producing this legislation. May I remind hon. members of this house that this type of legislation is extraordinarily difficult to prepare. That difficulty arises primarily from the fact that we are dealing with a commodity or commodities which, when properly used, are useful and valuable adjuncts to physicians in the control of pain and in the practice of their profession. It is, therefore, with great caution that the problem of instituting a program of control over such materials is attacked, particularly when we are dealing with possession, which normally should be available to people on a physician's prescription.
When we come to establishing a system under which we acquire control of these drugs, because in the hands of certain people they may be abused, I think all hon. members will appreciate the care with which such legislation must be drawn and the difficulty of evolving a scheme of control which protects the public interest against abuse and trafficking in these materials on the one hand, but which does not violate the right of individuals to be in proper and lawful possession on the other. Furthermore, and particularly important, this control must be designed in such a way as to not expose those individuals in lawful or innocent possession to the dangers of interference, prying and, indeed, pressure and perhaps persecution by the authorities responsible or having the power to enforce such control measures.
It is for those reasons that it is not until this session that a bill has actually been introduced. It has been studied and restudied by an interdepartmental committee which has been working in respect of it ever since evidence became definite that there was illicit trafficking in these drugs for the purposes of manufacturing and distributing goof balls.
The work of my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, with the assistance of all those individuals responsible for the enforcement of this program, in devising this legislation has been recognized and appreciated by all those who are concerned. He and I have had great interest and concern in this regard, and have worked in

co-operation, but it is primarily to him and his department that credit is due.
Hon. members of this house will, I am sure, be interested and appreciate knowing that the minister had a recent meeting with the mayor and members of a committee from the city of Montreal who have also been working with regard to this subject for some time, and have been greatly concerned with regard to the trafficking in these drugs. The mayor expressed his wholehearted and unreserved appreciation for the interest shown by the minister and for the legislation which has been introduced and is before this house now for final disposition. I feel that when we find the mayor of Montreal, who is concerned about this matter on behalf of his citizens-as is well known-expressing, in the glowing terms that he used, his appreciation for the bill the minister has introduced and for the interest shown by the ministers and the government in this matter, that should set at rest some of the questions which appear to bother my friend the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to take part in this debate at all, but because I am assured by my hon. friends who have shown particular interest in this legislation that if this were put to a vote it would be their intention to vote for the bill. In view of the repeated appeals from the government to the effect that it would like to expedite the work of this session, and in view of that assurance, I hope the minister will not persist in taking up the time of the house in an attempt to get a unanimous vote. Of course he is perfectly within his rights in doing that, but we are anxious to get on with other legislation. I repeat that assurance on the part of my hon. friends in order to save the time of the house.


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention at this stage will be brief, but I should like to point out to the house that in 1958 and 1959 this problem in respect of goof balls was of considerable interest to the people of my own riding of Halifax, and representations were made, through the hon. members for Halifax, to the Minister of National Health and Welfare at that time. Perhaps we can not claim paternity for this legislation, as do the hon. members for Outremont and Essex East, but at least we are well within the family circle of those who helped bring this serious matter to the understanding attention of the minister concerned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate whether what he said a moment ago also applies to the hon. member for Essex East?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have not consulted the hon. member for Essex East but have consulted those of my friends who are present, and believe I speak on behalf of all my friends. I should not like to think there was any difference in respect to the hon. member for Essex East.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


JUDGES ACT AND EXCHEQUER COURT ACT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 6, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-104, to amend the Judges Act and the Exchequer Court Act-Mr. Fulton-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-1955, c. 48, s. 1.
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, there is only one point in respect to which I should like the minister to comment. During the minister's remarks last evening he mentioned having discussed the situation in respect of judges with the Attorneys General of the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. As far as the province of Quebec is concerned, the minister reported having received representations from the chief justice of that province. Could the minister now say whether he has discussed the situation regarding judges with the Attorney General of the province of Quebec, and does the minister not think that representations by the chief justice of a province should be made directly to the attorney general of that province rather than to the Minister of Justice?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the situation here is that over a year ago the legislature of the province of Quebec provided for 5 additional judges in the Montreal district. That legislation is on the statute books and has not been rescinded by the legislature of the province of Quebec at the instigation of the present government of that province or otherwise. I take it, therefore, as I think I am entitled to, that this legislation represents the view of the government of the province.
Narcotic Drugs Control
The effect of that legislation is that there are still two judicial positions in the Montreal district for which this parliament has not provided salaries. I have had no indication from the Attorney General of Quebec that he does not agree with the view of the legislature of that province which previously expressed the opinion that there should be five more judges in the Montreal district.
I do quite naturally and properly have communications from time to time with the chief justice, formerly the associate chief justice, of the province of Quebec, just as I have with the chief justices of other provinces, with respect to the positions of judges for whom there are vacancies on the bench. For instance, when a vacancy occurs by death I frequently hear from the chief justice concerned if he feels that I should be informed that there is a heavy work load and thinks he should indicate to me that it would be appreciated if the appointment were made as quickly as possible or in other matters affecting the appointment of judges for whom positions already exist. In the course of the exchanges I have had with the chief justice of the superior court the impression I received has definitely been that there is a continuing requirement for the appointment of the judges to fill the vacancies which the legislature has provided.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.

Jay Waldo Monteith: the second reading of Bill No. C-100, to provide for the control of narcotic drugs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether we might call it one o'clock, but I also wondered whether it would be agreeable to the other parties if in moving second reading of this bill I were to speak to part I having to do with the general purposes of the bill, and then be followed by the Minister of Justice, who will speak in some detail on part II of the bill. I wonder whether this procedure might be followed after 2.30.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition was consulted privately about this matter. So far as we are concerned we think this would be a sensible arrangement, so the debate could take place after both ministers have exposed

Narcotic Drugs Control the government's position on the bill. I think I can speak for all my hon. friends when I say we are quite agreeable to the suggestion.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, in
moving second reading of the narcotic control act I thought hon. members might be interested in having a short review of the development not only of this particular measure but also of Canada's participation in the field of international narcotic control. The medical use of opium, which until relatively recent times has constituted the most widely known narcotic, can be traced back for many thousands of years. Records dating 7000 B.C. make reference to the use of opium for the relief of pain. Opium is the coagulated juice of the opium poppy which botanically is described as pap aver somniferum. It is distinguishable from the ordinary garden or Flanders variety of poppy which is grown for decorative purposes.
In a number of far eastern countries the opium poppy has traditionally represented an important agricultural crop. Of recent years, however, countries that at one time produced opium have discontinued its cultivation. Indeed, at the moment there are only some 12 to 15 countries that permit the growing of this plant. The major producing countries at the present time are India and Turkey. Several other countries produce small quantities but these are generally for their own consumption. Unfortunately there exists a substantial amount of illicit cultivation and it is from the illicit sources that the underworld criminal traffic in narcotic drugs is supplied.
It is the aim of the international agencies, with international co-operation, to attempt to limit to legitimate medical needs the world's supply of opium. Until the beginning of the nineteenth century opium was the best known and most effective pain killer. At that time morphine, which is a derivative of opium, was produced in Germany. Later on another derivative, namely, codeine, was produced, and in 1898 a further derivative, which became known as heroin, was developed from this natural source.
Ironically, heroin, which is now regarded as the most powerful and the most dangerous of all narcotics, was developed as a miracle pain killer with all of the virtues of an opiate but without any of its recognizable dangers. Within a very few years, however, the real potential of heroin was recognized and today

its use has virtually disappeared from modern medical practice everywhere in the world. Unfortunately it remains as the major narcotic of addiction in North America, and so long as there exists the illicit cultivation of opium there will exist a source from which illicit heroin can be manufactured to support the underworld criminal traffic.
Recognition of this fact is of great importance because of recent years medical reliance on opium has diminished and there have been developed a number of synthetic substances which can meet the therapeutic uses of opium but with less danger to the individuals than its derivatives. The authorities predict that the time may well come in the not too distant future when opium as a source of narcotic medication will substantially disappear and will be replaced wholly by synthetic substances chemically produced.
While opium was for many thousand years recognized and used in medical practice, it was also known and used to produce a state of euphoria or a sense of happiness and wellbeing. The dangers from addiction to opium while known were not legally suppressed until shortly after the turn of the present century when a number of the countries of the world commenced to take steps to control the use of this substance. International recognition of its dangers was first given at the Shanghai conference in 1909 and the principles agreed to at that time were embodied three years later in the narcotic convention signed at The Hague. This document, which is known as The Hague convention, marks the cornerstone in the foundation of international narcotic control. Since then there have been a number of narcotic treaties or conventions developed to deal not only with opium but with other drugs which also have narcotic properties and in particular the synthetic drugs.
Hon. members will, I am sure, be gratified to learn that Canada is one of the very few countries of the world that is a signatory to all existing narcotic conventions. Since the dangers of narcotics became internationally recognized, Canada has taken a leading part in the development of international control and Canadian legislation together with its enforcement have for a long time been regarded as amongst the most far-sighted and far-seeing of its kind by countries recognizing the narcotic problem.
It is with very special pride I now refer to Canadian participation in the recently concluded conference of plenipotentiaries at the United Nations in New York called to adopt a single convention to replace the nine existing multiple and multilateral treaties. This conference was indeed one of historic importance because it followed some 10 years of

deliberation and discussion by narcotic experts in proposing a document which took into account all aspects of narcotic control as presently developed and which, at the same time, made provision for the future. I am happy to be able to say that Canada, which not only played an active and important role in the conference, is now taking the necessary steps to be in a position, subject to the approval of parliament, to ratify that convention. The convention requires ratification by 40 parties to come into force. When this takes place the convention will replace existing narcotic treaties and will mark the commencement of a new era in the field of international narcotic control.
In referring to the active part taken at the conference by the Canadian delegation, it is fitting to mention that the head of our delegation was Mr. Robert Curran, the legal adviser to the Department of National Health and Welfare, who has also been very active in the development of the measure now before the house. As a mark of recognition of Canada's role at the conference, he was elected chairman of the main drafting committee responsible for the production of the text of the convention itself.
As I have mentioned, Canada's domestic legislation and its enforcement have long been regarded as amongst the most effective and realistic of any country in the world. In submitting the measure which is now before hon. members, I am glad to be able to say that it marks still further recognition of the steps which Canada regards as appropriate to take in dealing with the problem of the narcotic traffic and narcotic addiction. Canada, from the outset of its approach to the control of narcotics, has recognized that legislation to be effective must take into account two factors: The first, and the one which is frequently overlooked in referring to narcotics, is the necessity that the legislation must be such as will ensure that narcotics continue to be available for legitimate medical and scientific use. The other, and this has largely overshadowed the importance of the legitimate use of narcotics, relates to effective and vigorous enforcement to eliminate the narcotic traffic and its companion evil, narcotic addiction.
Narcotic legislation in Canada has traditionally been the responsibility of the health ministry, with its criminal enforcement the responsibility of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In this connection, it is not only timely but appropriate to pay public tribute to the continued efforts of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the war which it has waged on the narcotic traffic. The members of that force who are engaged in narcotic
Narcotic Drugs Control control work have demonstrated their dedication to the elimination of the evil and unwholesome traffic in narcotics. Inasmuch as persons so engaged must work under a cloak of anonymity, it is very fitting that I should, in introducing a measure that has been developed with their support and cooperation, pay public tribute to them.
I should now like to say a word with respect to the development of the measure which is before us. In 1955, an investigation was made by a special committee of the Senate into the narcotic traffic in Canada. In June of that year, the committee handed down its report which contained a number of recommendations relating to special measures for the suppression of the illicit traffic in narcotics. In 1957 a measure described as Bill D was introduced in the Senate which wholly revised the existing narcotic legislation and implemented substantially the recommendations contained in the Senate report. This bill was passed in the Senate and was given first reading in this house before parliament dissolved in the spring of 1957.
The reintroduction of that measure has been delayed pending further study and investigation of the narcotic problem in Canada and particularly of measures which might effectively be proposed for the treatment of narcotic addicts who are undergoing imprisonment for narcotic offences. The measure which is now introduced reflects very substantially the subject matter and content of the former measure but with a number of important changes which, in the light of experience, are considered desirable. In addition, the measure contains in part II special provisions relating to the control of narcotic addicts for the purpose of treatment.
In my explanation of this bill, I will not attempt however, to deal with those portions which are contained in part II because they involve matters which will be wholly within the area of responsibility of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) as relating to the penitentiary system and the national parole service. While these matters will be dealt with in detail by the Minister of Justice, I might say at this time that the provisions in question set out special procedures for the control of narcotic addicts who are convicted of offences under the act and will, therefore, be subject to the jurisdiction of the penitentiary authorities and of the national parole service.
While the control of the misuse or abuse of narcotics is an essential purpose of the legislation, a more important purpose lies in the control provisions which are designed to ensure the availability of narcotics for legitimate medical and scientific use in the

Narcotic Drugs Control alleviation of pain and suffering and the treatment of disease. So well controlled has been the legal use of narcotics in Canada that this most important feature has tended to be overlooked, and the emphasis given to the dramatic aspects of the continual war against the underworld traffic.
I have previously touched upon Canada's role in international narcotic control. I can assure hon. members that this measure implements in every particular all of the obligations and undertakings which are involved in our international relations and, in particular, in the convention which has recently been concluded in this important area.
As I have mentioned, the subject matter of Bill D which was prepared a few years ago has not been overlooked and it has provided a basis for the present bill. In addition, however, we have endeavoured to reflect in it the experience gained since that time, as well as providing a new procedure which it is hoped will cope more effectively with the problem of narcotic addiction than has been attempted in the past.
In preparing this bill, we have examined the laws of other countries to ensure that Canada's narcotic legislation will continue to rank amongst the best in the world and that it will not suffer by comparison with any other narcotic legislation nor lack anything which will lead to a more effective accomplishment of this purpose.
This bill, which completely revises the present law, does not change its basic policy or purpose. Structurally it represents a different approach to the control of the problem. Apart from removing a number of anomalies in the present legislation, and deleting provisions which are now archaic, it separates the criminal enforcement aspects from the legal distributing aspects. The latter will now be covered entirely by the regulations. This is regarded as an important change because it gives to the distribution and availability of narcotic drugs a desirable flexibility and will permit of effective changes being made as time and experience may indicate. This, of course, is apart altogether from the provisions of part II which deal entirely with the control and custody of narcotic addicts for the purpose of treatment. The bill reflects and recognizes the realities of the narcotic situation, not only as it exists today but as it may be expected to develop in the foreseeable future.
Hon. members will note a change in the title of the legislation. I have mentioned the diminishing importance of opium and it was not thought desirable that the use of this particular substance should be perpetuated in the title. The word "narcotic" which is incapable of precise definition does however 
have a widely recognized generic meaning and it was therefore thought desirable to reemphasize this in the title of the bill itself.
As I have mentioned, part I, which is the part for which the Minister of National Health and Welfare is responsible, has two aspects, the first being the enforcement and the second the legal distribution of narcotics in accordance with the regulations.
Possession except as authorized by the act or the regulations continues to be an offence. Here an important change is made from the present act which provides for a mandatory minimum penalty of six months for the offence of possession.
The bill provides for a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment, which is the same as the present act but, except as is provided in part II in the case of proven narcotic addicts, does not impose any mandatory minimum. In the case of narcotic addicts, the procedure of part II provides for a sentence of custody for the purpose of treatment for an indeterminate period. This involves matters which will more appropriately be spoken to by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton).
With regard to trafficking, no change is made in the substantive offences which are established. These are of two kinds, the first related to traffic which is defined in the act, and the second to possession for the purpose of trafficking. An important change is, however, made in the penalty provisions.
The report of the Senate committee recommended that trafficking, regardless of its purpose, should be made a costly and hazardous undertaking in terms of a penalty. While the Senate committee did recommend that there be mandatory minimums for second or subsequent offences for trafficking, it was the view of the enforcement authorities that a more effective deterrent would lie in the increase of the maximum penalty and that the courts should be empowered to impose within the framework of a lengthy maximum what might be an appropriate penalty for trafficking.
The sentence which may be imposed has been raised to life imprisonment. In this way parliament will have indicated clearly the seriousness with which it regards trafficking offences and the courts can, therefore, take cognizance of this in fixing appropriate penalties.
This, of course, is again subject to the provisions of part II which make provision for a sentence of preventive detention for subsequent convictions for trafficking and for custody for treatment for an indeterminate period the case of addict traffickers. This, however, is a matter which the Minister of

Justice will more properly deal with in explaining the purposes of part II.
I should like to say a special word with respect to section 5 which establishes a new type of offence. Our experience has shown that with the control measures over the legal importation and distribution of narcotics, there is no diversion from legal sources into illicit traffic. Narcotics used in the illicit traffic are smuggled for that purpose into Canada. If it were not for the illicit importation of narcotics, there would be no trafficking problem and, correspondingly, no problem of narcotic addiction. The Senate committee, recognizing this, recommended the establishment of a special offence of illicit importation with an effective mandatory minimum penalty.
There can be no possible excuse or justification for the illicit smuggling of narcotics into this country and the legislation properly recognizes this evil in establishing a special offence against illicit importation with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment but with a mandatory minimum of seven years.
Unfortunately, in dealing with the illicit importation of narcotics, it is seldom that the enforcement authorities come in contact with the hierarchy of international traffickers. The negotiations are arranged by those persons but the actual carriage of narcotics from abroad into North America is almost invariably entrusted to subordinates or paid hirelings. These people may be addicted but as a rule are not. Usually they are engaged in smuggling purely for financial profit and it is therefore felt that the most effective way of deterring persons from this type of transaction is to make the offence of smuggling a costly one.
The bill contains an additional offence of illicit exportation and it may seem to hon. members that there is a contradiction if narcotics are not produced in Canada. The international trafficker is not as a rule concerned with geography but only with a market. North America is a victim area and, depending upon the individuals engaged, the arrangements to be made and other factors, narcotics may be smuggled into the United States for subsequent transshipment to Canada, or into Canada for subsequent transshipment to the United States. In keeping with the purpose of the recently concluded convention which makes special reference to international trafficking, it was thought appropriate to penalize exportation from Canada in the same way as illicit importation. This provision is therefore wholly in keeping with the fulfilment of our international obligation.
There is one further provision relating to the criminal side of the measure to which
90205-6-378
Narcotic Drugs Control I might make brief reference. This relates to cultivation of the opium poppy or of marijuana.
I briefly touched upon the opium poppy in my opening remarks. While the opium poppy is not legally cultivated in Canada, it is considered appropriate to prohibit its cultivation except under licence which, for practical purposes, is never issued. It would, however, permit of a licence being issued for experimental scientific purposes. Similarly in the case of marijuana.
The use of marijuana as a drug of addiction in Canada is fortunately not widespread. It, however, may well provide a stepping stone to addiction to heroin and here again cultivation of marijuana is prohibited except under licence.
The circumstances under which a licence might be issued could well involve experimentation to develop a form of plant for hemp purposes but without a narcotic content. Considerable work in this regard is, I understand, going forward in the United States and the time may well come when it will be possible to produce a source of hemp that is not associated with the dangers currently posed by the cultivation of marijuana.
Before coming to that part of the bill which deals with the legal distribution under the regulations, I should like to say a brief word on the seizure and forfeiture provisions. Here an important change is made from the present act.
The present act provides for the automatic forfeiture of any conveyance containing a narcotic or used in any manner in connection with the commission of an offence. This provision was designed to further impede the mobility of the trafficker by making vehicles subject to forfeiture.
Recognizing that under modern practices innocent persons may frequently have an interest in vehicles which would otherwise be prejudiced, the bill sets out a procedure whereby an innocent person may obtain protection to cover his interest in a vehicle used in trafficking and which is forfeited by the court.
It will be noted, however, that in the case of narcotics or moneys used for their purchase, these are subject to automatic forfeiture because they form part of the commission of the actual offence.
This brings me to the concluding part of the bill which is within my responsibility and which deals with the legal availability and use of narcotics. As I have mentioned, this will be done through the regulations which can be adapted to current needs and purposes.
While strict control over the legal distribution and use of narcotics is necessary, it
5982	HOUSE OF
Narcotic Drugs Control would not be in the public interest if in an attempt to accomplish this there were imposed undue restrictions or limitations on the distribution and use of narcotics for medical purposes.
The manufacture, distribution and use of narcotics for these purposes requires supervision and control but with a workable flexibility in its administration. This flexibility could not effectively be obtained if all controls were entrenched in the legislation itself. Even under the present act, a great deal is delegated to regulations and experience has shown that this feature can usefully be extended to provide for all aspects of importation, distribution and use for legitimate purposes.
The availability of narcotics is, of course, primarily of interest to the healing professions and notably in the practice of medicine. It follows, therefore, that any proposals which impose controls should carry the support and understanding of the medical profession.
Regulations have been prepared and, in principle, these have been discussed with the representatives of organized medicine in Canada, as well as with the provincial licensing authorities who are concerned with the control of the practice of medicine. I can assure hon. members, therefore, that the regulations which have been drafted and which will in due course be submitted for enactment, carry with them the support and approval of organized medicine in this country.
Other provisions will be made regarding the licensing of importers, manufacturers and distributors and the control of narcotics by retail distributors and in hospitals, but these regulations do not of themselves incorporate any new or substantial change in the present control system.
May I, therefore, conclude my explanation by commending to hon. members this bill, which I believe marks a further and important advance by Canada in its control of the illicit use of narcotics, but which at the same time makes adequate provision for the legitimate employment by the healing professions of those substances for the relief of pain and suffering.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It
is, I believe, the desire of the house that I should follow the submission made by my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) in order that the complete outline of the government's thinking in connection with this legislation might be before the house for the purpose of the subsequent debate.
My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, has outlined the scheme 

of this legislation, and indicated the role of his department in devising a plan to give effective control of the distribution of narcotics through those channels and for those purposes which are regarded as legitimate. The legislation itself makes all other uses or possession of narcotics illegitimate. The responsibility of the Minister of Justice arises in connection with the enforcement of the control measures, the detection and apprehension of those who are breaking the law, and the custody and treatment of those who are convicted of such offences. I should like to outline to the house the new approach to these problems that underlies those portions of the bill with which I am concerned, which are found in part II.
It is always difficult, and usually dangerous, to summarize the basis or effect of legislation dealing with a problem as complex as this one, but if I were to attempt it, I should do it as follows. First, we have had to recognize that notwithstanding all the vigorous, faithful and efficient enforcement of the present act, the program embraced in that legislation has not been effective to solve the problems of narcotic addiction and narcotic trafficking. A new approach is therefore necessary.
Next, our studies have shown that the narcotic drugs in use for illegal purposes are not grown or manufactured in Canada but are imported and distributed initially through highly organized criminal circles. This leads to the conclusion that the objective of legislation should be threefold: first, to reduce so far as possible the supply of drugs brought in and distributed for illegal purposes; second, but simultaneously to reduce the demand for illegal drugs by providing effective treatment for existing addicts, and third, to prevent the creation of additional demand by preventing, so far as possible, the creation of new addicts
The drug traffic, after all, like any commercial activity obeys the laws of supply and demand. To remove the supply therefore will not remove the demand and to remove the demand will not necessarily reduce the opportunity of supply. It is necessary therefore for us to attempt to reduce both the supply and demand at the same time.
The third feature of the legislation is based on the recognition that the jurisdiction of parliament in this area is limited to the field of criminal law, that is, the creation of offences by the enactment of legislation and the provision of suitable punishment, to be imposed by the courts, for persons who commit those offences. The conclusion to be reached from this is that, in so far as this parliament is concerned, we can deal only with a part-although an important part, still only a part-of the problem of addiction.

This follows because there are in fact two types of addict, the criminal addict and the non-criminal addict. The first are those who are addicts and who are criminals as well, in most cases to support their addiction; the second are those who, although not convicted of any criminal offence, are known or suspected to be drug addicts. The first group -the addict who is convicted of a criminal offence-is within the jurisdiction of the federal law and therefore within the scope of any treatment or other program we may provide; but the other group who are perhaps sick rather than criminal, but most of whom must be treated for their addiction if they are to be saved from becoming criminal, are entirely within the jurisdiction of provincial laws.
The new approach therefore contemplates that there will be complementary provincial legislation to provide for the custody and treatment of the non-criminal addict. Without such co-operative and complementary action there will always be a significant and frustrating gap in our efforts to deal with the drug problem in Canada. We have already made an initial approach to the provinces in this connection, and this bill contains a provision reflecting our desire to co-operate by providing custody and treatment programs in our institutions for addicts who may be committed under either federal or provincial laws.
After this brief outline of the scheme of the legislation, let me turn to a more detailed examination of its various features. I have said that one of the objectives of the new legislation is to reduce the demand for illegal drugs by providing effective treatment for existing addicts. It will be appropriate, therefore, first to outline the scope of narcotic addiction in Canada and the new steps we propose for its effective control.
The world health organization defines a narcotic drug addict as a person who, through the use of narcotic drugs, develops an overpowering desire or need to continue to take the drug and to obtain it by any means, legal or illegal; he demonstrates a tendency to increase the quantity of the dose that he requires in order to satisfy his desire or need and he also has a psychological and sometimes a physical dependence on the effect of the drug.
The nature of the narcotic drug addiction problem in Canada is this: the legal use of narcotic drugs is limited by federal laws and regulations, as my colleague explained to certain approved medical and scientific purposes. Any other use is, by law, illegal. A person who has become addicted to narcotic drugs ordinarily is unable to support his habit by the legal purchase of drugs and therefore, 90205-6-378J
Narcotic Drugs Control in order to achieve his purpose, must resort to illegal purchases. The cost of drugs purchased illegally is high, and the addict ordinarily is incapable of earning by any legal means the money that he requires for illegal purchases. As a result the addict, who must generally purchase drugs one or more times daily, engages in criminal activity such as theft, shoplifting or peddling of drugs to other addicts and, in the case of females, in prostitution.
The best information available indicates that at the moment there are in Canada some 3,100 criminal addicts. It is, at the moment, a national problem that finds its greatest concentration in British Columbia and more particularly in the city of Vancouver. On a national basis one out of every 5,700 Canadians is a criminal addict. In Canada's cities, although the situation gives cause for concern in Montreal and Toronto, the problem is concentrated in the city of Vancouver. Montreal has one criminal addict for every 5,000 persons. Winnipeg, for example, has one for every 3,750 persons, and Toronto has one for every 2,000 persons. The greater Vancouver area has a criminal addict for every 390 residents. It is, therefore, in the city of Vancouver that there is the greatest immediate need for a solution, or at least an attempted solution, of the narcotic addiction problem.
However, I must emphasize that no solution or proposed solution can hope to be effective unless it operates on a national scale because if we brought in a solution that was operative only locally the result would inevitably be to drive the addicts and traffickers into those parts of Canada where the scheme was not operating or was not effective.
Another feature of the problem which gives an idea of the necessity for a new approach is the heartbreaking fact that under the present system the criminal addict is going through our penal institutions in a never ending cycle; crime, arrest and conviction; incarceration for a stated term; release, return to evil haunts and associations and again into the cycle of crime, arrest and conviction. It is a degrading cycle which leads steadily downward, and it is a social blot which should permit of no rest until it is eradicated. It spells perdition to its victims, and it is frustrating to the authorities to have to enforce the present program in the sure knowledge that of the number of known criminal addicts approximately one third are in our jails or penitentiaries at any one time, inevitably to return to the cycle on their release unless some effective change is made in our method of handling the whole problem.
The consideration of this situation has led us to the conclusion that what is needed is a concentrated effort to reform and rehabilitate

Narcotic Drugs Control rather than simply to incarcerate. We have decided accordingly to deal with the problem in so far as treatment of the criminal addict is concerned, by a three pronged attack: to cure his addiction in so far as medical and psychiatric knowledge make this possible; to treat his fundamental delinquency with a view to a reform of his criminal habits; and to provide the maximum degree of post release care and supervision with the object of assisting him to avoid a return to the cycle of addiction, crime and conviction.
Before outlining our program in detail, let me refer to one or two other approaches which have been suggested, but which we have rejected. One proposal that has been made with the objective of reducing or eliminating the illegal demand for drugs is this: To segregate every addict for life upon conviction for the offence of being in possession of illegal drugs. I think that this is unsound in principle because it is inconsistent with the basic philosophy of correction, which is, the reform of the offender. It is a completely negative approach which should certainly not be resorted to, at least until positive approaches have been tried and have been found to be inadequate. There would be substantial administrative difficulties as well as objections in principle. With no real hope of freedom the addict would make no effort to improve himself and, therefore, there would be little likelihood that the addict could ever establish that he had developed either the ability or the desire to abstain from the illegal use of drugs when at large. The result would be that by far the vast majority of addicts would live out their lives in captivity.
Again, such a procedure, that is the segregation for life of criminal addicts, would be extremely expensive as well as socially wasteful. The number of criminal addicts involved would, in a short time, be at least 3,000. The cost of maintaining each of them in a maximum security institution would certainly be not less than $6 a day, that is to say $18,000 a day for all of them or a total of $6,570,000 a year. This is, in addition to being socially wasteful and wrong in principle, clearly prohibitive because of cost, except as a last resort.
Another proposal that has been made is to provide drugs at cost to existing addicts according to their needs. This proposal has been uniformly and unequivocably rejected in a number of reports: The Canadian Senate report, a special report by a committee of the United States senate, a report by the United Nations narcotic commission and the report of the joint committee of the American bar association and the American medical association.


What then should be the federal program in relation to the criminal addict? The fundamental issue to be determined is whether, generally speaking, the criminal addict can, or cannot, abstain from the commission of criminal acts and, simultaneously, abstain from the use of narcotic drugs. The Canadian experience, thus far, on the basis of programs at present in existence, has tended to show that, generally speaking, he abstains from neither one nor the other. However, the clinical studies carried on by the Stevenson committee satisfied that committee that at least some addicts can discontinue the use of narcotic drugs and abstain from them under certain circumstances. They found that where there was any motivation for such discontinuance and abstention it was, generally speaking, an increasing dissatisfaction with the type of life the average addict was living and a desire for a more normal socially integrated life. Addicts who gave up the use of narcotics, they found, fell into two main groups; (a) those who became alcoholics, in which case they merely exchanged one chemical substance for another and may very well have been no better off than they were previously; and (b) those who gave up delinquency and addiction concurrently to become well conducted socially integrated citizens.
They found that the factors that tended to aid discontinuance in and abstention from the use of narcotic drugs and crimes were as follows: First, a strong desire for social reintegration and a fair degree of courage and persistence in pursuing this objective; second, avoidance of or minimal contacts with alcoholic or related substances; third, avoidance of contacts with delinquents, addicts and drug traffickers; fourth, acceptance and assistance by friends and relatives; fifth, congenial domestic relationships; sixth, satisfying work relationships; seventh, a constructive religious environment; and eighth, cultivation of socially approved recreation and hobbies.
Now, it is significant, Mr. Speaker, that these are the same factors that are ordinarily found to exist in the case of the reform and rehabilitation of the non-addict offender. The point would seem to be, therefore, that the criminal addict must be treated not only for his addiction but also for his fundamental delinquency. This makes the problem of reform of the narcotic addict not necessarily different from that of the reform of other criminals, but rather appreciably more difficult.
The basic approach of this bill to the problem of reducing and, if possible, eliminating the illegal demand for drugs by existing addicts is to provide for appropriate

institutional treatment to remedy the fundamental delinquency of the addict and to provide suitable supervision and guidance to assist the addict to abstain from using drugs during substantial periods of his life in the community.
We have decided, therefore, that instead of providing for simple imprisonment, our law should provide for committal to custody for treatment of persons who are addicts. The federal law should apply in relation to those persons who, being convicted of simple, illegal possession of narcotic drugs, are found to be drug addicts and are committed to custody for treatment accordingly in criminal proceedings. The provincial law should apply in relation to those persons who, not being under charge for any criminal offense under federal laws, are found, in proceedings under appropriate provincial legislation, to be drug addicts and are committed to custody for treatment accordingly under that legislation.
Committal to custody for treatment, whether made under federal or provincial law, should involve the following:
First, confinement in a secure place until such time as it is determined, by competent authority, that it is in the interest of the inmate and not contrary to the over-all interests of society for the inmate to be released; second, treatment, while in custody, by way of (a) the development of working skills or, in any event, good working habits, and (b) psychiatric, psychological and social counselling; third, development, while in custody, of an appropriate post-release program of employment, supervision and counselling; fourth, release at the appropriate time, under supervision for an indefinite period and, finally, return to custody for further treatment if, during the post-release period, it appears to be necessary for treatment purposes.
The effect of committal of an addict to "custody for treatment" by virtue of this legislation will be as follows: In the first place, the addict will be liable to detention and treatment for an indefinite period. Second, he will be eligible for release only at the instance and under the certificate of the national parole board and subject to conditions to be fixed by the board in each case. Third, the addict, after release, will be subject to supervision and guidance to be arranged by the national agency. Fourth, the period of supervision after release will be for first offenders a period up to 10 years, and for second offenders indefinite, and during that period the addict will be subject to frequent, periodic physical examination by means of the most up-to-date methods to determine whether he is again using narcotic
Narcotic Drugs Control drugs. Fifth, where, pursuant to such examination, he is found to be using narcotic drugs he will be dealt with by the parole board either by revocation of his certificate, in which case the addict will be returned to further custody and treatment for the remainder of the 10 years, or an indefinite period as the case may be, subject to be released by the agency by means of the same procedure that applied in the first instance, or, alternatively, by continuing the certificate under the same or altered conditions.
I am satisfied that the key to the success of this plan for treatment of the criminal addict will lie in the nature and extent of the after care that is provided for addicts who are released from custody by the national parole board. The program of after care should be consistent with and a natural extension of the program of treatment that the addict receives in the institution. If it is not, and if for that reason or for any other avoidable reason, the addict again resorts to drugs and to criminal activities, the money spent on specialized treatment for him in the institution will, for all practical purposes, have been wasted. It is important, therefore, that at least as much if not more emphasis should be placed upon the program of after care in relation to the addict as is placed on the program for treatment for him in the institution. Experience alone will determine how large a case load can be handled effectively by a parole supervisor.
The problem of finding suitable employment for released addicts will also have to be solved. Without employment the addict is not likely to abstain from the illegal use of drugs. If he commences again to use drugs illegally it is unlikely that he will abstain from the commission of criminal offences. In this connection, therefore, as in so many others where we are dealing with the reform and rehabilitation of offenders, the intelligent and sympathetic support of society itself is required. I hope that the parole board officials, the private after care agencies and all others who may be concerned with making this program effective, will be able to count on the support and active assistance of every level of society in placing the paroled addict in gainful and useful employment.
I turn next, Mr. Speaker, to that part of the bill designed to accomplish the objective of limiting and indeed going as far as possible to dry up completely the supplies of narcotics available for illegal purposes. Here we are dealing generally with the problem of trafficking.
The traffic in narcotic drugs is essentially a world-wide problem. It would not exist if the growth, manufacture and distribution of

Narcotic Drugs Control narcotic drugs could be strictly limited to the amounts known to be needed for legitimate medicinal and research purposes. The United Nations are making efforts in this direction. However, in each year the amount required for legitimate medicinal and research purposes in all countries totals only about one quarter of the world production. It follows, therefore, that extremely large quantities of narcotic drugs are available in the world for illegal purposes and it is no surprise that a proportion of these quantities of drugs find their way to Canada to be distributed by illegal trafficking methods. What is required, therefore, to reduce the quantities of drugs available in Canada for illegal purposes is continuing strict enforcement of the various federal statutes that are involved, principally this legislation and the Customs Act. There must be continuing control by the Department of National Health and Welfare over the legitimate distribution of drugs in Canada. But there must also be constant vigilance and co-operation by federal, provincial and municipal police forces against the illegal possession and distribution of illegal narcotic drugs.
In connection with the problem of trafficking, we should not overlook the fact pointed out by my colleague that there would be no traffic within Canada were the supplies of narcotics not illegally smuggled into Canada. Therefore, we have created a new offense, with very heavy penalties even for the first offenders, of illegal importation. With respect to their custody and, where appropriate, their treatment, however, we have applied the same principles, and what I have to say about the trafficker applies generally to both the trafficker and the illegal importer.
In developing legislative policy in relation to the trafficker, the motivation of the trafficker should be immaterial. The law and the enforcement of it should be based on the view that the trafficker who peddles drugs primarily to pay the cost of his own addiction is no less a menace to society, while at large, than the trafficker who peddles for some other purpose. The law relating to the suppression of trafficking, then, should be sufficient in terms of punishment reasonably to deter the would-be trafficker from engaging in that form of activity and, if it does not do so, it should be adequate to protect society against him when he persists.
However, the law should also take into account that reform of the trafficker is possible, whether probable or not, and so he should have available to him the same opportunities of returning to society as a law-abiding citizen that are available to other classes of offenders who undergo imprisonment. The
[Mr. Fulton.l
trafficker, therefore, whether himself addicted or not, should be eligible for consideration for parole at appropriate times and under appropriate conditions to be determined by the parole board.
It would seem, then, that appropriate federal legislation against illegal drug trafficking should be designed:	(a) to deter the
would-be trafficker; (b) to teach a salutary lesson to the peddler who may deal in many small transactions and also to the major distributor who may deal in only a few large ones; (c) to attempt to assist the convicted trafficker to live in society upon his release without engaging in this form of criminal activity; and (d) to remove from society, for substantial periods, those persons who have demonstrated by their previous conduct that they are not likely to refrain from this type of conduct in the future.
The present law, as contained in the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, provides that every person who traffics in any drug or who has in his possession any drug for the purpose of trafficking is liable, upon conviction, to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and, in addition, at the discretion of the judge, to be whipped. No sentence of more than 14 years may be imposed upon a second or subsequent conviction. Probation may be granted to first offenders.
By contrast, this bill reflects the view that, in order to emphasize the serious nature of the offence, to provide the greatest possible degree of deterrence and to ensure that an appropriate remedy is available to the court where it is faced with the worst possible case of trafficking, the maximum punishment for that offence should be life imprisonment, and that it should be open to the court to impose it in a proper case, even where the accused is a first offender. There exists ample precedent for this in the Criminal Code at the present time. For example, the following offences, even in the case of a first offender, have a maximum punishment of life imprisonment: robbery, stopping the mail with intent to rob or search it; breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence therein; mischief causing actual danger to life; rape; kidnapping; committing abortion; manslaughter; causing death by criminal negligence; attempted murder and accessory after the fact to murder. It would be difficult, indeed, to contend that the social harm caused by the deliberate drug trafficker is less than that caused by persons who commit any of the offences that I have enumerated.
Probation will continue to be available in proper cases for first offenders. The probation period could, of course, be made for any fixed

term of years or for life. If, during the term of the probation, the convicted trafficker violates any condition of probation, whether by engaging in trafficking or otherwise, the court would be authorized to impose any sentence that it might have imposed in the first instance, up to life imprisonment. During the term of probation, of course, the probationer is under the direct supervision and guidance of a probation officer.
What this bill proposes in the matter of sentences in relation to drug traffickers is not in my opinion in any way excessive having regard to the desired objective, namely, the removal of the danger to society that is presented by the person who is prepared to undertake the illegal distribution of narcotic drugs. The provisions of this bill will give almost complete discretion to the courts to adopt the course that is indicated as most appropriate in the individual case: to give to the first offender a chance to profit by his mistake and to continue to live in freedom; to remove from society for treatment and training, during an appropriate period, the trafficker who has not profited by his previous experience or, indeed, in an appropriate case to sentence him to life for a first offence; and to remove from society indefinitely those persons who refuse repeatedly to learn from experience.
I should say also that the approach in the bill provides with respect to the trafficker that if he is found to be an addict he may then and should, of course, be committed to custody for treatment, a sentence which would be imposed instead of a sentence for his offence of trafficking. The approach here is that all those who are addicts should primarily be treated for their addiction. Whether they be merely addicts without being traffickers or whether they be traffickers as well, if they are addicts then the first thing is to attempt to cure or to treat their addiction.
I will deal now with the third of the objectives I mentioned earlier, that of preventing the creation of new addicts. The prevention of the creation of new drug addicts would appear to be for the most part a provincial responsibility. The enactment by parliament of appropriate laws against the illegal supply of drugs and the strict and continuing enforcement of those laws will, by drying up that supply, assist in reducing the amount of drugs available for addicts or for traffickers to purvey to non-addicts with whom they associate. The way in which the federal government can best aid in preventing new addiction is by segregating in its penal system existing criminal addicts from non-addicts, thereby avoiding the type of association that in the past has tended to promote new addiction by young delinquents. This we propose
Narcotic Drugs Control to do in British Columbia by means of a new institution that will be started in that province this year.
With regard to the over-all problem, however, of what it is that creates drug addiction, the Stevenson report of 1956 found, from its examination of the delinquency records of addicted and non-addicted prisoners who were studied, the following:
1.	In the addicted subjects the common finding of maladjustment in the home and school as children was carried over into neighbourhood maladjustments in juvenile delinquency.
2.	Membership in juvenile delinquent gangs was common.
3.	Contacts in childhood with the police because of unsatisfactory behaviour were frequent.
4.	Between one third and one half of those who later became addicts spent some time as juveniles in correctional institutions.
5.	The great majority of addicts had convictions in juvenile or adult courts before they began the use of narcotics.
6.	Once addiction became established, the addicts, male and female, tended to engage in anti-social activities on a full time basis, in addition to violations of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.
7.	Addicts are a segment of the delinquent population.
8.	Non-addicted delinquents have court records very similar to those of addicted delinquents, minus only violations of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.
9.	Addicts usually prefer not to be involved in crimes associated with violence, their common crimes being theft, shoplifting and related activities for the men, and prostitution for the women.
It would seem, therefore, that the best means of preventing the creation of new addicts is by preventing juvenile delinquency, a matter that,, in terms of the social, physical and moral development of young persons, seems to fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures.
However, while this is so, in so far as concerns the control of juvenile delinquency and the prevention of those habits of criminality which lead so often to addiction, there is a portion of the federal program which will make a real contribution to the prevention of the creation of new addicts. This is our proposal to establish separate treatment centres to which all narcotic addicts, confined under federal legislation, will be committed. The first of these institutions will be, as indicated, in the lower mainland of British Columbia and upon its establishment there we will be able to segregate criminal addicts
5988	HOUSE OF
Narcotic Drugs Control in British Columbia from the inmates of our institutions who are not addicts.
The problem of the presence in the same institution of addicts and non-addicts has been a constant difficulty in the way of preventing the spread of addiction. Strenuous measures are taken to prevent the introduction of narcotics into the institutions, but the nature and organization of illegal drug trafficking are such that it is not possible to guarantee absolute success. This results, unfortunately, not only in supplies coming in to addicts but in some cases in the creation of addiction. The establishment of new, separate institutions for addicts alone will give us a much better opportunity for control and even if we are not successful in preventing absolutely the introduction of narcotics into such institutions the segregation of addicts which will be accomplished will eliminate the spread of addiction through the mixing of addicts and non-addicts.
Furthermore, when, as I hope they will, the provinces agree to pass complementary legislation under which non-criminal addicts requiring treatment may be committed to our new treatment centres, this will represent a further step forward in the segregation of addicts and non-addicts. It will also represent a forward step in that we should by this co-operative measure be able to secure the commitment to custody for treatment in these specialized institutions of persons who, if they were not thus treated, would almost inevitably become criminals as well as addicts, thus representing an addition to the number of criminal addicts and a potent further danger from the point of view of the spread of addiction.
In conclusion then, the establishment of these new specialized institutions for the treatment of addicts will represent a federal contribution, and ultimately a federal-provincial co-operative program, for the prevention of the creation of new addicts.
I should like to refer to just one other matter although it has already been touched upon by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I refer to the care which has been taken in the bill now before the house to revise those portions of the old Opium and Narcotic Drug Act dealing with the confiscation and forfeiture of vehicles and other material used in connection with the commission of an offence under that act. Here again is another case where the government has been careful to revise such provisions and bring them into conformity with the bill of rights. The drafting of such legislation, motivated on the one hand by the proper desire to be severe with those who commit offences under this act or those who permit their property to be used and are


careless whether or not their property or property in which they have an interest, is used to facilitate the commission of an offence, presents a difficult problem from the point of view of being certain you do not go so far as to deprive an innocent party of his property without an opportunity to have a hearing before the courts.
After a very great deal of careful study, consideration and consultation we believe that the method outlined by my colleague represents a sufficiently stern and severe provision with respect to the man who carelessly or wilfully allows his property-I refer particularly to motor vehicles-to be used to facilitate the commission of an offence, while at the same time providing a method by which the innocent person is given an opportunity to establish his innocence of complicity in the offence. He is given an opportunity to establish the fact he has taken reasonable care to prevent his property from being used for that purpose and also to establish his interest in the property. The man is given the right to go before the courts and in appropriate cases where these things are established, the courts will order the restoration of the property of such innocent owners.
We take great pride and satisfaction, firstly in bringing these parts of the former legislation into line with the bill of rights, and also in the position generally taken that the spirit of the bill of rights must be observed and carried forward into all legislation introduced by this government. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the house will agree with my colleague and me that we have produced here legislation which is sound in its approach and effective in its method, as well as forward looking in its results, to bring at last an effective program for dealing with this problem of drug addiction.


Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few remarks in respect of the bill which is before the house and the statements made by the two ministers during the past hour or so with regard to this legislation. I think it probably goes without saying but must of necessity be repeated, that all Canadians decry the fact there is anywhere in our society a problem with drug addiction. Most Canadians will be astonished to find such widespread effects as has been indicated by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) in the few statistics which he gave us. I think even those members who represent constituencies in British Columbia will be astonished to learn that one out of every 390 people in the greater Vancouver area suffer from this disability. Certainly, there is a necessity, according to

everything which modern science has learned, for having a Janus-like approach to this problem. The stern face should brook no opposition to the stamping out of this social evil, and this stern face should be shown to those who, for venal purposes for the purpose of making money only, prey upon the disability of other persons. No one in Canada would suggest that legislation could be too onerous, too difficult, for those who traffic for the purpose of money only.
Members of the opposition, of the government and of the public generally should, in approaching a problem which creates an emotional response as well as a rational response, be careful to see that legislation does not go too far. This legislation should provide that necessary framework for fitting into our whole concept of law, that is that a man shall not be found guilty unless so proven. It is necessary also that we scrutinize any such legislation extremely carefully to make sure that great power is not improperly used against someone alleged to have committed such a crime.
I believe it goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that all Canadians will wish that the second face which is turned toward those who suffer from addiction be firstly firm, and second, kindly. This is an illness just as much as alcohol addiction or other more physical ailments. It is an illness which requires assistance, perhaps even more than alcoholism because it has been shown that assistance is difficult to give since there seems to be so little co-operation from those who are caught in the net of addiction. I think many hon. members will have read a great deal in the public press in the last few years, particularly the United States and Canadian press, in the form of first person stories about addiction either by the individuals concerned, their children or their friends. One such person in particular is the well known United States writer, Alexander King, who deals with his frequent comings and goings from institutions, from which one can only deduce it is highly unlikely anyone really has a desire to escape addiction until the last few years of his life. I feel that the most usual reaction after all this reading is, what a terrible waste of humanity. There is not just the suffering of the addict, of course, but the shame which the family of the addict feels. There is the added fact that there is no income coming into the family, and the physical illness which results from continued addiction.
We, on this side, therefore, can do nothing but approve of the principle of Bill No. C-100. I, personally, would like to commend both ministers for the approach to the problem which their statements reveal. It is both a
Narcotic Drugs Control modern one and one which shows the sternness of the law will be applied to make sure that, in so far as this parliament is capable of doing so, addiction shall be stamped out. At the same time, a helping hand will be offered to those who will accept help. This, of course, does not mean that those of us in this group are abdicating our responsibilities as members of the opposition. We intend to scrutinize carefully the various clauses as they come before the committee of the whole.
I might refer specifically to some of the things which were said by each of the ministers in their statements. First, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mon-teith) said that there must be availability of drugs such as those listed in the schedule for legitimate purposes. Obviously, it is necessary because modern science could not get on without them. The problem is to get rid of addiction, and this is a problem not only for the 3,100 people who are already addicted and to whom the Minister of Justice referred but for the children and young women who may later become addicts. It was for this reason the Minister of Justice suggested there should be a three pronged approach: first, reducing the possibility of the importation of drugs into Canada; second, cutting down the demand for drugs by the addicts who are presently known and, third, doing what is possible to prevent new addicts.
The Minister of Justice pointed out quite properly that there are two types of addicts, the criminal and non-criminal. I can only assume that the criminal is the one with whom we are dealing and that, unhappily, there are not so many non-criminal addicts because even if they begin this way they shortly become criminals. If I may for once be excused for referring in this chamber to my sex, I should like to say that this is one of the problems which is of great concern to those interested in the enforcement of the law in so far as women are concerned. It is a fact, happy or otherwise, that the greatest proportion of women criminals in Canada are those who have, by reason of addiction, been drawn into prostitution. It is possible for a man to obtain some sort of casual employment in order to obtain money to feed his habit or to engage in something like robbing a house or a passerby. However, this is not the type of crime in which women can engage. A woman has only one way, a most degrading way, in which she can raise some money to feed this habit. Perhaps stamping out addiction amongst women, leaving everything else aside, will go a long way toward stamping out the growing evils associated with the prostitution of young women in the major cities of Canada.
5990	HOUSE OF
Narcotic Drugs Control
The proposals in the bill for dealing with those known addicts, whether they be traffickers or simply those in possession of drugs, are I think good in principle. The concept which the Minister of Justice set out with regard to the way in which addiction must be treated is, however, something that perhaps can better be stated than realized. The five or six points he made included a desire for reintegration into society, personal courage, avoidance of alcoholics, avoidance of addicts and other criminals, acceptance by his friends, good relations at home with his wife and family and at work, acceptance back into his former religion and recreation and hobbies. Not all of these, of course, are things that can be legislated toward. A program of education will be required not only for the addict but for the public that may come in immediate contact with him and indeed for the public at large.
This is something that cannot be legislated under this bill or any other bin. It will have to be done through a special concerted attack not only by the federal and provincial governments but by welfare agencies and through assistance in provision of employment. A sympathetic and intelligent attitude on the part of the public to those who have received treatment and who have been considered sufficiently good risks to be released will be one of the largest areas to which assistance can be given by this government and by other levels of government. I think this is already one of the places where more work is necessary in Canada for every criminal who is released and more so for a criminal who has been an addict. Most employers appear to have a special approach to individuals who have been either alcoholics or narcotic addicts and they are more afraid of taking them on than of taking on those who may have been parolees on a charge of theft, robbery or something of that nature. Therefore such a piece of legislation as this one is only the first step toward a long and expensive but necessary program.
When anyone in Canada reads the figures quoted by the minister this afternoon, I think it will be agreed that this legislation is already overdue, that it cannot go far enough and that from this time forward it will be necessary to treat as a matter of national urgency a program which will return to their proper place in the community not only these 3,100 who already suffer from addiction but will prevent anyone else from swelling that number.
The problem of juvenile delinquency, of course, is one which has occupied the attention of the people of Canada for some time, perhaps since the war or a little bit earlier 

than that. It has done so since these teenagers began to be treated as a group of society apart, since social workers began to discover that these were not just younger adults but were a class of the population with special problems. The Minister of Justice indicated that a number of elements are found both in ordinary juvenile delinquents and in juvenile delinquents who are delinquent as a result of their use of narcotics or who are addicts as the result of their juvenile delinquency. Certainly a program in which all levels of government cooperate in order to assist in the removal of this cancer of present day society is also long overdue and one which can only be greeted with applause.
The provision of the first institution where young persons and addicts are to be separated from other criminals is, I think, an important experiment and one that will be watched by all persons in Canada with hope that it will be a successful one and can be spread further.
In conclusion, I should like to say that we on this side approve in principle the statements of both ministers on the legislation before the house. We wish, of course, to deal with the individual clauses as they come before the committee of the whole. We will continue in the discharge of our responsibility to assure, in so far as we are capable of doing so, that the public as represented by a charged but not convicted criminal shall continue to be protected; but, once they are convicted either of trafficking or addiction, the principle of sending them up for preventive detention and for treatment is an excellent one and one in which we thoroughly concur.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I consider that the bill now up for consideration on motion for second reading in this House of Commons is without doubt one of the most important pieces of legislation to be introduced this session. That feeling will, of course, be understood by hon. members recognizing that I am one of the House of Commons representatives from the city of Vancouver. The Minister of Justice has given us an indication of the seriousness of the narcotic problem in Canada, in particular in the lower mainland of British Columbia surrounding the city of Vancouver. He pointed out that, of the 3,100 known addicts in Canada, over half are in the city of Vancouver. I have known of this problem for a great many years. That is the reason why my late father and I, as members of the British Columbia legislature some 25 years ago, started a serious study of the problem and never lost any opportunity in the British Columbia house to speak on it

every session. As hon. members know, I believe I have spoken on it every year in which I have had the privilege of being a member of the House of Commons.
Before going into what I have to say on the specific bill itself I should like to comment on some of the statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his opening remarks. I can agree with the minister that Canada can take pride in the fact that it has been a signatory to all the international treaties and conventions. It can also take pride in the fact that in Canada the legislation has been of a nature to try to control the illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs. However, I cannot agree that we have been a spearhead or in advance in our legislation or in our approach in tackling the problem as far as addiction itself is concerned. Actually, I think Canada has been one of the most backward nations of the world in this respect. You will therefore, Mr. Speaker, understand why I greatly appreciate the fact that at long last a modern and realistic approach is being taken with regard to all aspects of the narcotic problem.
I wish to agree completely, however with the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare with regard to the narcotic conference that was held at the United Nations this year. Whether we are dealing with members of the government party, the official opposition or this group, I am one who firmly believes that when commendation is due, commendation should be given. I think that the long narcotic conference held under the auspices of the world health organization at the United Nations this year was truly a magnificent effort. The fact that, after conferring annually for ten years, 99 member nations of the United Nations and nine countries invited as observers were able to come to a unanimous agreement on consolidating nine previous treaties and conventions into one, with just one exception,-and I think that is part I of the 1936 treaty-was a truly great achievement as also was the achievement of unanimous consent to consolidation into a single department of the other eight or nine various organizations in the international field that deal with narcotics. As I say, that was real progress and Canada can take a great deal of satisfaction from what occurred. I had the privilege of being at the United Nations during the latter days of the meeting of that conference. I have taken the opportunity of reading every word of the hundreds and hundreds of pages of the transcript of the evidence and I have no hesitation in saying that this house and the Canadian people owe a vote of thanks to Mr. Curran, our Canadian representative, for the work he did at that conference and particularly
Narcotic Drugs Control as chairman of the drafting committee. He must get a great deal of credit for the work he did on behalf of Canada.
As I said, I had the privilege of being there during the latter part of this conference and I thus had the opportunity to meet members of the delegations from other countries. I was impressed by the unanimity which they expressed in asking that Canada should take early action in ratifying the new treaty. Although there was unanimity about the acceptance of that treaty at the conference, that treaty, must, of course, be ratified by each of the countries and I found a measure of apprehension in the minds of representatives of some countries that there might be a long delay in obtaining official ratification. There was a unanimity of opinion, which gave me a certain feeling of pride, that if Canada would take a lead in ratifying the document it would have an important impact on many other countries.
I was therefore very pleased to hear the minister inform us, if I understood him correctly, that at an early date this house will be asked to ratify the new treaty.
May I also say with regard to that conference that on reading the transcript of evidence I was puzzled that Canada should be experiencing this most serious problem. Other countries such as the United Kingdom, Scandinavia, Israel and many others, countries with populations larger than ours and with international seaports like our own, do not experience this problem. I do not know the reason for this, but it was interesting to note, with regard to the section which dealt with rehabilitation and the treatment of addicts, that 65 countries said they had no need of provisions for treatment and rehabilitation centres because the problem, with them, was not sufficiently serious. As I say, I found this puzzling.
There is another matter which puzzles me. In the United Nations, there are 99 nations represented all of whom were invited to this conference. The world health organization also invited representatives of nine other countries who are not members of the United Nations, and those countries attended. Thus the representatives of 108 countries were present. I am not certain whether I heard the hon. gentleman correctly, but I think the minister said the major source of these drugs was India and Turkey. In the evidence I read it was emphasized time and time again that communist China was the major source, both of the drugs and of the illicit trafficking. So I was surprised to find, since the world organization had invited nine delegations representing countries not members of the United Nations that this
5992	HOUSE OF
Narcotic Drugs Control country which is said to be the main source of the trouble was not represented at the conference. I was not able to get an answer as to why the country which presented the major problem as being the source of these narcotics was not represented at the narcotics conference. That is all I want to say on the subject of the conference but I wish to repeat that it was a magnificent one and that Canada can be proud of the contribution made by Mr. Curran as well as of the results and the achievements generally.
Now I turn again to the bill itself. As the Minister of Justice has pointed out, according to the latest figures there are 3,100 known addicts in Canada of whom more than half are in Vancouver. I have been intrigued as to why this should be the situation. I can only conclude that it must be because Vancouver is an international port and because it is in closest proximity to what the narcotics conference said is the main source of production and of illicit trading in narcotics, namely, communist China. Irrespective of the reasons why such a situation should exist, it presents a severe and serious problem. Together with all other members of this group, I am grateful that in the bill now before us it is recognized for the first time that provision should be made for the treatment of addicts as sick people and not as criminals. I am certain that the establishment of the rehabilitation centres will go a long way toward alleviating the situation.
I was most interested in the statement made by the minister when he suggested that the question be approached in terms of supply and demand. I completely agree with what he said in this regard. I feel that sufficient attention is not being paid to that and one other aspect of the problem, namely the profit angle. After all my studies of this question and the keen interest I have shown in it I feel we should make real progress if something were done to remove the profit motive. Undoubtedly the illicit trade continues mainly because of the exorbitant profits to be made from the illegal sale of drugs. I suggest one of the main reasons why there are so many addicts is because those illicit traffickers in this field vigorously seek to introduce unaddicted people to the horrible habit of use of these narcotics.
Studies have been made by the Canadian Senate committee, and the report of that committee has indicated its rejection, for some reason, of what is known as the English principle. I must say that the English principle has been very successful. As has been pointed out year after year by the United Nations, in the United Kingdom, which has a population of some 47 million, the known number of 

addicts for quite a considerable period of time has been less than 400. I suggest one of the reasons for this situation in the United Kingdom is that it is not considered a crime there to be addicted to the use of drugs. However, under their system known addicts must be treated. An individual there having received treatment without being completely cured, and upon a report of the medical doctors to that effect, is provided a minimal daily shot on prescription which he purchases at cost.
I suggest that this phase of the problem in respect of addicts should be considered thoroughly by the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare. That system has proven successful in the United Kingdom as well as in Scandinavian countries and in Israel. I suggest it has decreased the number of addicts because it has removed the lucrative aspect of narcotic trafficking. When the profit is removed the illicit trade ceases.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to relate my remarks to the situation in Canada. I am very sorry to note that this particular phase of the situation has not been covered by this proposed measure, as I feel it should have been covered. Because of my interest in this problem over a period of 25 years I know of many different addicts. I can at this time recall one young man who was a good member of society until he began to use narcotics and eventually became completely addicted to their use. That young man eventually reached the point where he needed so many shots he had to turn to a path of crime in order to obtain them. That young man got married and unfortunately successfully addicted his wife to the use of drugs as well. At this time she is incurably insane-nothing can be done for her. After a long period of time and a great deal of effort, during which period the young man was in and out of prison as a result of his criminal activities, we were successful in getting him to submit to medical treatment. Following a period of treatment the doctors arrived at the decision that they could not do anything more for him and that he required a minimal daily shot of narcotics. During a period of some years now that man has been receiving his minimal shot per day from the doctors and has never broken the laws of Canada again by a return to crime.
I suggest that is a good illustration of what can be accomplished in regard to this problem.
I think it should be spelled out in this proposed legislation that, in respect to that type of case, following a medical man's certification of an addict as being cured as far as possible, but still needing a minimal shot, that addict can obtain that amount on subscription at cost. I am sure the Minister of Justice has knowledge of the fact that in regard to addicts

of this type doctors will not recommend or provide this treatment because of the necessity of having the Royal Canadian Mounted Police keep close check on the quantities of narcotics ordered by different doctors. I have spoken with many doctors who invariably have indicated to me that they will not bother with this type of treatment in view of the necessity of such an investigation being made as to the amount of narcotics ordered by him. While I understand it is permissible, under the Canada Medical Act, for doctors to provide this type of treatment, I think advantageous influence might flow from the spelling out of the legality of this type of treatment under this act. I make that suggestion for the consideration of the two ministers who are sponsoring this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to refer to what in my opinion is something of an important nature not covered by this bill. I completely agree with the principle that there is a requirement for co-operation between the federal and provincial governments in order to arrest known addicts so as to provide them with treatment. I am, however, concerned, in this regard because, as I read the provisions contained in this bill, there is still a criminal aspect involved. The Minister of Justice having lived in British Columbia, will know that years ago there was an extremely difficult situation there in respect of the number of persons afflicted with infectious tuberculosis. The hospitals of British Columbia were not only filled some years ago but the province had to build more. The number of people with infectious tuberculosis was increasing because of the fact that irresponsible individuals would not voluntarily submit to treatment. I take a lot of pride in the fact that, while in opposition, I suggested year after year there should be a change made whereby those known infected individuals could be compelled to take treatment. That change was made and has proven to be very satisfactory. Today in British Columbia the province not only has ceased building tuberculosis hospitals but has closed the existing hospitals with the exception of one, which I understand is only about one third filled. I suggest an identical principle could be adopted in regard to the treatment of known narcotic addicts, with a great deal of effect. However, as I read the provisions of this bill, one vital factor has been ignored or forgotten, and I refer to voluntary committals. I am convinced from my knowledge of this problem, and the individuals who are addicts, many of them actually desire to have the monkey off their backs, which is the term that is used, and would voluntarily submit to treatment. As I have said, there is no provision contained in this proposed legislation in respect to voluntary committals. The only
Narcotic Drugs Control course open to an individual is voluntarily to say that he is an addict. He would then come under this clause which I still say in its actual terminology has a criminal approach.
May I give one example why I think this is of the utmost importance. A few months ago in the city of Victoria a father found out that his 17-year-old daughter was a drug addict. He did what I think was the right thing. He picked up the telephone and called the police. He hold them that he had just discovered that his 17-year-old daughter was a drug addict and he said, "What would you advise me to do?" Do you know what happened, sir? He was not given any advice as to the best procedure to follow for the girl's sake and to cure her of the addiction. Because the father had telephoned the police raided the home. The girl was arrested and sentenced to prison. I think that was a damnable procedure to follow, a vicious mistake. What they should have done was to direct that the girl be sent to a doctor or be referred to the narcotic foundation of British Columbia, which is doing a magnificent job. Instead of that she was picked up. She was sentenced to jail and she is now considered a criminal.
I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Justice to consider whether between now and the discussion of the bill in committee it would be possible to include some wording under which there would be an indication to the provinces that under provincial legislation a voluntary commitment could take place without the stigma or the taint of crime being attached to it. I sincerely hope that this will be considered by the government.
This legislation is of such importance that one could speak a long time on it. However, I am not going to go into a number of other aspects which I feel are important because I believe it can be done when the house is in committee. Without going into any detail at all, I should like to mention in passing some points which have to do with the details of the bill which should be considered further by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Justice. I hope we shall have a discussion on them in committee. I mention them very briefly so that they can be noted by the minister.
May I say I am sorry I was not here yesterday when the goof ball bill was discussed; I had to be away. This bill contains a principle similar to that contained in the other bill. Yesterday I had the privilege of meeting one of the great constitutional lawyers of Canada and also certain professors. That meeting took place in connection with other matters. They expressed anxiety about one principle in this bill which is contained in a clause which can mean only that an

Narcotic Drugs Control indicted person must prove his innocence. It has always been my belief that the responsibility for proving guilt was 100 per cent on the crown. The thought of having to prove one's innocence is something which is antagonistic to what we commonly, favourably and lovingly call British justice. I do think that this matter should be reconsidered.
There is also the clause that deals with trafficking. I am discussing it only in principle. A person can have no sympathy for one who breaks the law, no sympathy at all for one who commits homicide and, of course, no sympathy for one who traffics in narcotics. I think about the lowest depths that any man or woman can sink to is to be a trafficker in narcotics. A murderer kills and that is it. But one who traffics in drugs, who brings a person to addiction, to that insatiable craziness, makes an absolute hourly and daily hell for life for the addict. I, therefore, have no sympathy for him, and I agree that for the trafficker there should be a penalty of up to life. But there is one phase of the question of trafficking that I do not quite understand. On the first conviction for trafficking the penalty can be up to life, but there is no minimum punishment for the first offence. This may not sound the way I talk at times, but when it comes to this curse of trafficking in narcotics I can realize what it means to those who become addicted. Although I agree completely with the sentence of up to life and an indeterminate sentence, I say there should be a minimum period for the first offence of trafficking. It is a pretty important matter and one which should be made clear by law, so that those who are guilty of the first offence of trafficking will know that there is a minimum and they will be out after at least that length of time.
As I mentioned a while ago, there is nothing in the bill having to do with the legal minimal supply of drugs. I hope this will be considered by the Minister of Justice.
There is also a clause which deals with restoration of articles seized. Under certain terms and conditions a person can make application for the restoration of what has been seized if he had the narcotics legally. There is nothing in the bill which says that if the person is innocent and restoration is made there shall be payment for the damage caused. I wish to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have been in homes that have been raided because of the suspicion of narcotics being present. I have seen smashed walls, smashed plumbing, smashed electrical fixtures, and so on, running into damage amounting to hundreds of dollars. The suspicion was not well founded, but there is nothing in the law which says


that the innocent home owner shall get anything back for the damage done by the crown, although the occupant has not broken any law of Canada. I think, sir, in all sense of justice and decency something should be done either by regulation or by the legislation itself to deal with this phase of the matter also.
I notice, sir, that my time has almost expired, but I should like to mention two more points. We are most happy that provision is going to be made for post discharge care and supervision. Supervision on discharge after having received treatment is of the utmost importance. That is the time when these people are coming back into society and they need a great deal of help. I hope the wording of the bill means that great emphasis is going to be placed on this matter.
May I also refer, and I address myself now particularly to the Minister of Justice, to the need for very careful instructions, which should be most carefully obeyed, to the police forces of our country. I have known many addicts, both men and women, in the course of my research into this matter. I am afraid that many have returned to addiction or have become anti-social through being hounded because they were known addicts and had been to jail or penitentiary.
I mentioned a while ago the case of a young man who for years now has not come into conflict with the law. Yet I was informed only recently that periodically he is picked up by the police because of his past record. Nothing is ever found. The police know that he is getting the minimum dose and yet he is picked up periodically. Psychologically speaking, this is dynamite so far as that individual is concerned whom we tried for years to rehabilitate and finally did.
I know of another case in the city of Vancouver involving a man who has been sent to jail three times as a drug addict. I know for an absolute fact from my own personal knowledge that this man has been hounded. He gets a job and two days later someone says to his employer, "Do you know whom you have got on the job", and the man is fired. In addition, his brother, who has never been in trouble with the police, is also hounded, simply because he is the brother of a narcotic addict who has been in jail three times. This is not fiction. I speak from my own intimate personal knowledge.
So far as post discharge rehabilitation and supervision are concerned, I plead with the Minister of Justice to recognize the psychological effect of trying to help these people rather than hound them. I feel certain that point is in the mind of the minister but I believe he should know there are many who

do not follow his precepts and principles. I am quite certain that some people have become addicts again because of a psychological break down brought about by the situation I have just outlined.
I think I have said enough on second reading. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I believe that the bill is a great advance over anything we have had before. It represents a constructive approach to a most serious problem. The government is to be commended for tackling the problem at long last and bringing in this bill. In principle it has our wholehearted support. However, as the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) said, there are some details of the bill which we would like to have an opportunity of discussing with both ministers from the point of view of possibly making some changes and strengthening the legislation so that it can be a real forward step toward the solution of a most difficult problem.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Would the hon. member permit a question before he resumes his seat? In his very interesting remarks on this most grave problem, he stated that the problem of addiction was particularly felt in the city of Vancouver, no doubt because of the relative position of Vancouver and China. From his studies and research with respect to the problem, can the hon. member state whether it exists in the same degree of acuteness in all the coastal cities on the west coast of the United States? In San Francisco, for instance, is the degree of addiction comparable with that in Vancouver?


Harold Edward Winch: I do not have the actual figures but from what I know I would say that on a comparative basis the problem is similar in San Francisco and San Pedro, the port of Los Angeles. It is also prevalent, though not quite to the same extent, in the city of San Diego. I do not think that Vancouver stands alone on the Pacific coast.


Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to give my wholehearted support to my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith). I could not agree with him more when he described this measure as marking a further important advance in Canada's efforts with respect to narcotic control. While I am sure all hon. members recognize the importance of the bill, I have a particular interest in it because I have been connected with a pharmaceutical manufacturing business for years which has been engaged in manufacturing and distributing narcotics in Canada and the United States. While this has brought me in close contact with the problem of narcotics and specifically with
Narcotic Drugs Control the matter of making those substances available for legitimate medical uses, from my own experience I can vouch for the excellence of Canada's arrangements in this regard which I agree are possibly the best in the world.
What has impressed me most is the fact that the supervision of the legitimate use of narcotics has not only been effective but has been carried on in such a way as to reduce to a minimum the inconvenience to medical practitioners and to the pharmaceutical industry. Anyone familiar with the intricacies of the problem will appreciate the fact that the situation could be otherwise. Bureaucratic controls could be extremely cumbersome and burdensome to those who handle narcotics for legitimate purposes. The fact that this has not been the case is, I believe, a great tribute both to those who have been responsible for the developing of our legislation and those who have been charged with the difficult task of putting it into effect.
In my own case I know that relations with the supervisory authorities in the Department of National Health and Welfare have been on the whole very satisfactory, but perhaps the most striking evidence of the success of Canada's narcotic control program is provided by the fact that addiction and the illicit traffic in narcotics are supported almost completely from materials smuggled into the country. I am told by the departmental authorities that little, if any, narcotics entering into illicit channels come from legal sources of supply, that is, either from the medical profession or the retailer or wholesaler or manufacturer of drugs. This to my mind represents a tremendous achievement. While a major problem still exists through illicit importation, the situation would be much more serious if our supervisory system did not work so efficiently in keeping the legal production of narcotics in proper channels.
In this connection, it might be of interest to the house to have a bird's eye view of how this supervisory system actually operates. I have in mind, of course, the effect it has on pharmaceutical manufacturers. If such a manufacturer wishes to produce an item which has primarily a narcotic content, he must meet certain standards, not only with respect to competent and qualified staff but also the safeguarding of supplies. These standards are set by the Department of National Health and Welfare. Once they are met, a manufacturing licence is granted by the department. Armed with such a licence, the manufacturer in question may then go ahead with the production and distribution of his product, so long as it is limited to
5996	HOUSE OF
Narcotic Drugs Control certain customers who, because of professional status, are entitled to obtain narcotics. The main group here consists of physicians, dentists, retail pharmacists, wholesale pharmacists and veterinary surgeons. Distribution to these people is carefully controlled. Supplies of narcotics can be sold by the manufacturer only on the strength of a signed narcotic order. This is comparable to the prescription which the physician gives the patient to obtain any other drug in the pharmacy. In addition, all transactions, including both quantities purchased and sold, must be accurately recorded by the licensed manufacturer. Monthly reports of this record must be submitted to the federal authorities.
In addition to these controls, federal inspectors make annual examination of the manufacturers' stocks and of their records. Inventories are taken of all supplies and a firm must be in a position to account for all its materials purchased and sold. This amounts, in effect, to a complete audit.
So much for the supervisory system. As hon. members can see, it attaches very closely, in operation, to the manufacturers, and if not handled efficiently, as it has been, considerable difficulty could result. The fact these difficulties have not arisen is indicated, I believe, by the fact that in drawing up the revised version of the federal legislation it has not been felt necessary to make any real changes to the provisions governing the legal distribution and supervision of narcotics. The bill now before the house, in effect, simply continues the basic approach adopted in the past so far as these two items are concerned.
The bill does, however, incorporate a shift in emphasis which it is considered should make our control system even better. Over the years experience has suggested that flexibility is of great importance, and that this can be best achieved through the regulations rather than by legislation. Regulations have the great advantage that they can be revised quickly to meet changing conditions in medical and pharmaceutical practice. One hardly needs to mention the fact that changes are becoming more and more prevalent in medical science and technology. The new bill, therefore, gives greater recognition to this state of affairs and places the supervision of the legal use of narcotics almost solely on the basis of regulations. I know that this change will be welcomed by the entire pharmaceutical industry. I am sure it will be welcomed also by dentists, doctors and druggists, as well as others directly involved in the legal use of narcotics.
In so far as the illicit traffic in narcotics is concerned, there can be no doubt as to the
[Mr. Halpenny.l

general agreement that no measure should be neglected in attempting its suppression. In my opinion, the stern provisions embodied in the new act for dealing with traffickers go about as far as we can go in deterring their evil enterprise. Anyone convicted of trafficking will be liable to life imprisonment and, for successive offences of this type, a person will be subject to preventive detention indefinitely. These are strong measures but I am sure that no one who is familiar with the narcotics traffic will consider them unduly severe. For those convicted for possession of narcotics, the mandatory minimum sentence of six months has been eliminated. Those convicted of this offence are usually addicts, and as such will be subject to the provisions of part II of the new act dealing with treatment.
Finally, a new offence is created, namely the smuggling of narcotics. This, I believe, is not only appropriate but is also in line with Canada's international obligations as intimated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his opening statement.
In so far as the treatment and supervision of addicts is concerned, this, of course, is a wholly new departure. It is embodied in part II of the new act and will come under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Justice. Although a new departure, it is actually somewhat of an experimental undertaking and is one which our government is convinced should be definitely explored. How it will work out in practice remains to be seen. Special treatment facilities will be provided. These should represent a substantial advantage over the past. I am sure no one, including the Minister of Justice, holds the view that treatment facilities alone can overcome narcotic addiction. The attitude of the addict himself is a prime factor in any program. Also of prime importance are the opportunities afforded him for rehabilitation into community life. Unless these latter two elements are favourably developed, treatment cannot be of any value. If they are developed in conjunction with treatment, then there may be hope of achieving a positive effect.
Realistically, it must be admitted that most of our addicts were problems for society long before addiction itself developed. This fact implies that their rehabilitation, both personal and socially, will likely be extremely difficult. Nevertheless, the government is convinced of the necessity for taking this positive approach. We feel a start must be made in the hope that from greater knowledge and experience, some real progress may be possible. We believe that the segregation of addicts, as envisaged under the new act, will in itself have a beneficial effect in preventing the spread of addiction at least among prison

inmates. This is particularly important because it is well known that addiction spreads by association with this group. I believe that the new provisions for the treatment and supervision of addicts represent a significant step forward, as do the other aspects of the bill now before the house. I have no doubt that this measure will commend itself most definitely to Canadians and will receive the wholehearted support of all hon. members.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say only a few words on the motion for second reading of this very important bill now before us. All those who spoke before me emphasized the seriousness, the importance and the need of this bill. They also suggested that all members would unanimously agree at least on the principle of the bill under discussion.
Mr. Speaker, 1 understand that by passing this legislation, we shall repeal the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. This means that Bill C-100 includes certain provisions of the former act, as well as new ones. In this regard, I should like to point out to the house that this is the first time, to my knowledge, that a bill is submitted without any explanatory notes. I hope that the minister will give us some reason when he replies to our various remarks.
In fact, I noticed that when a new bill is introduced to amend an existing statute, we are always given explanatory notes, which greatly help us appreciate the extent of the proposed changes and the legislator's intentions. In my opinion, it is most unfortunate that this long bill, which has a great number of sections, should not also contain such notes. I would have appreciated it very much if it had been provided with explanatory notes; that would have been most helpful to us in understanding the importance of the changes which are proposed through these new provisions.
The second part of the bill introduces a new concept: preventive detention and custody for treatment. It is to be expected that such an innovation will call for an expansion program with respect to the construction of institutions and will entail, I think, federal-provincial agreements on the question. It was quite urgent that inmates who are drug addicts be separated from other criminals. So, the sooner we build those institutions for the custody and treatment of addicts, the better it will be for all concerned.
Narcotic Drugs Control
Mr. Speaker, without entering into all the details of this bill, since we will have an opportunity to deal with them in the committee of the whole, I glanced briefly at clause 8. Here, the minister recognizes the fact of possession as an offence under the law, so that if a person charged with drug traffic is brought before the court and the crown establishes the fact of possession, it will have established an offence on the part of the accused. Everyone knows that by making possession an offence the enforcement of an act such as this is made much easier.
I think the minister will appreciate the basic distinction between section 8 of Bill C-100 and a certain section of a bill which we discussed last night. But I do not wish to labour the point because I would be out of order and because the minister, having heard about it during hours last night, would not like to see me take that course again.
Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) was telling us, in his statement, that this new act, including these new provisions, was being substituted for an act which had not proved as effective as expected. I do not think such an assertion is justified on the part of the minister.
Crime as much as society changes with the years and laws that have been of great value for us in the past have to be amended in the light of changing conditions. I feel that we have here an instance of that. This new act, embodying new concepts, is being introduced to meet new requirements. I readily agree with the principle of the bill; I am glad this legislation has been introduced and I am sure it will be very effective.
I understand that severe penalties are provided for the supplying of imported narcotic drugs. Provision is made for the treatment of addicts. On this matter of drug addict treatment, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) asked the minister earlier to consider the possibility for those whose addiction reduces them to slavery to be treated without being taken before the courts. On that point, I should like to quote a few lines from an editorial which appeared in La Presse for Wednesday, May 31:
-at the same time, the victims of that traffic who become addicted to drugs should properly be considered as ill. They are less guilty than the traffickers and are more in need of treatment than of punishment. However, it is not enough to pass good legislation. The laws must be enforced with severity in the case of criminals and with humanity in the case of sick people.
5998	HOUSE OF
Narcotic Drugs Control
Mr. Speaker, this problem created by the use of drugs is obviously very serious. It is said to be more serious in the Vancouver area, but I am not too sure of that, nor am I sure of the accuracy of the statistics quoted by the minister a moment ago. When it comes to narcotics, there are no statistics that can give a complete idea of the extent of the damage caused in this country. I am quite sure that every large city, Toronto just as much as Montreal-which is a seaport-are exposed to the evils of this scourge.
This bill also provides for the rehabilitation and re-education of those afflicted with what I would call this disease.
Even if we pass this bill, which we will try to improve when the details are considered in committee, it will not be enough. An educational campaign will have to be launched to warn the public, and particularly the young people, against the danger of this social evil of drug addiction.
Mr. Speaker, we have discussed cases where responsibility varies as between importers, traffickers or users of narcotics.
As far as I am concerned, we can never deal too harshly with those who knowingly and deliberately engage in the importation of such drugs, which are a plague to society and to many of our homes. Nor can we ever be too hard on traffickers, people who, while trafficking in narcotics, are usually smart enough not to use them themselves, but prey on the misery and enslavement of others.
Personally, I think we should provide the severest punishment for those two classes of criminals.
Our primary responsibility here is to pass legislation to protect society, decent people and particularly our young people.
I feel sure every hon. member will want to take this opportunity to make the law as strict as possible, so that those responsible for this scourge that victimizes so many Canadians will be subject to the most severe punishment.
(Text):


Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: I wish to take the opportunity at this time to deal with this very important bill, a measure which is of particular significance to those hon. members who come from the lower mainland of British Columbia.


It has been indicated that there are between 3,000 and 5,000 drug addicts in Canada at the present time and that some 1,500 or 2,000 of them are in the greater Vancouver area. These addicts require some $30 a day to spend on their drug habit which is the equivalent of $10,000 a year, or the entire salary of a member of parliament devoted entirely to the purchase of drugs. If a further calculation is made on the basis of 2,000 drug addicts we arrive at a figure of approximately $20 million a year being spent on drugs, and if we further consider that the majority of these people have to steal in order to provide for their habit and that stolen goods only realize one third of their true value, we reach a figure of some $60 million a year. Perhaps this figure is high, because of the fact that many of the addicts are in prison or capable of "tapering off" at intervals, but the calculation is enough to show that the problem is an extremely serious one viewed from the financial aspect alone.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) and myself took the opportunity during the last recess to visit the New Westminster penitentiary and I was impressed by the work that warden Hall was doing despite the handicap imposed by the intermixing with the rest of the prison population of the 25 per cent who are drug addicts. I think one positive step which the present bill takes is the provision made for the segregation of drug addicts. We also took the opportunity to visit the Oakalla prison farm and again we saw an excellent job being done by warden Hugh Christie in the face of tremendous handicaps. A separate establishment is provided there for women drug addicts and the officials are engaged in an excellent rehabilitation campaign. I emphasize these positive aspects of the work which is presently being done despite the handicaps imposed by shortage of accommodation and so on. One point which has not been emphasized is the higher than average level of intelligence possessed by most drug addicts. In order to provide for the satisfaction of their habit they are obliged to be "on the go" literally night and day. Even when an addict is put into a penitentiary or a prison farm this activity continues, and despite all the precautions taken large quantities of drugs are smuggled in. There have been instances where drugs have been concealed in the shoes of children visiting their parents. In other cases, books have been brought in, certain pages of which had been soaked with a particular drug. The prisoner would secure the book and retire to his cell, extract the drug and usually manage to get the necessary material for a fix. I mention this to show that the

addict presents a most difficult problem; the fact that the present bill provides for his segregation goes a long way.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) has deplored the fact that no voluntary treatment centres for drug addicts are to be provided, yet he did mention the narcotic addict foundation of British Columbia which was started in 1955. At the present time it is under the direction of Dr. Robert Halliday who is doing outstanding work in the treatment of addicts who attend voluntarily. He is assisted by a capable board of directors, the chairman being Mr. John Carson. This foundation treats both in patients and out patients, besides providing for rehabilitation, education and research. I do not think we can consider the provisions of this particular bill in isolation. It provides for the penal aspects of this problem and for the treatment of addicts caught in the crime net; I think it should go forward side by side with the development of an organization such as the narcotic addict foundation of British Columbia which has done the pioneer work and now needs substantial funds in order to expand its operations.
I think that one important aspect of this work which has been neglected is the tremendous amount of research work which is needed. I was concerned when the minister told us that this new institution contemplated would be placed somewhere on the lower mainland. This provides a considerable amount of latitude. I think it is important that this treatment centre should be located right in the community where most drug addicts are to be found and that it should also be located close to the universities where skilled and qualified people are available to undertake the necessary research tasks. If the buildings are put up in some outlying region I suggest that qualified personnel will not be available to deal with this problem.
Here is an interesting thing about the Vancouver area. It is true we have the highest rate of addiction in Canada. We also have the highest rates of suicide, divorce, illegitimacy, delinquency, alcoholism and admission to mental hospitals. I doubt if the tourist association will be too happy about this recommendation, but I think it indicates there is a high degree of correlation between drug addiction and other social diseases. The only social studies we have had so far in Canada have been one made in 1955 by the special Senate committee dealing with drug addiction and a report by Mr. Stevenson, I believe, in 1956. I suggest that the sociological aspect of research in regard to literature available has been negligible.
I should also like to suggest that the location of the centres should be at those points
Narcotic Drugs Control where the drug addiction problem is greatest. The primary one would of course be located in the city of Vancouver with a second and third located at Toronto and Montreal. I suggest they be established close to universities and regular community facilities. That particular plan has been followed by the narcotic foundation which has found it to be successful in respect to both in and out patients.
There is one other aspect of the present legislation with which I am particularly concerned dealing with the matter of trafficking.
I do not feel that the provision for life imprisonment is sufficient and that there should be included in the provisions of this act the death sentence as an alternative. I make that suggestion because I feel that those individuals dealing in narcotic trafficking are perhaps committing a worse type of murder-destruction of the social entity of victims they introduce to use of narcotics-than the types of murder for which we have provided sentences by recent amendments to the Criminal Code.
I think this type of crime is described quite accurately in an article which appeared in Life magazine for February 1, 1960. The article relates to world crime syndicates and reads as follows:
But whatever their corporate structure and whatever their number of employees, international criminals in all fields share certain common attitudes. They are interested in big, quick profits. They are contemptuous of the laws they so adroitly evade. They are indifferent to the suffering and hardship that they spread throughout the world.
At the top of the roster stands the most extensive, most effective criminal agency in the western world, the widely known and widely misunderstood Mafia. Many people are convinced that the Mafia is a colossus of crime with branch offices in every major city and an I.B.M.-like efficiency. Some people are convinced that the Mafia, if it ever existed at all, does not exist now. Both groups are mistaken.
The Mafia does exist. But instead of being a world-wide syndicate, it operates almost entirely in its birthplace, Sicily, and in its adopted home, the United States. It does have a few branch offices on the Italian mainland and in certain centres of the narcotics trade but scarcely a single representative anywhere else. It does have a kind of organization but not a very tightknit one. The Mafia is principally a way of life shared by groups of lawbreakers who understand and trust one another and who work together for mutual safety.
This work is crime-usually dirty crime. As reported in last week's article, the Mafia is the principal conductor of the world's cruelest business, the narcotics traffic.
I feel it is also of interest to note that in January of last year, or some time prior to that, many of the type of people that belong to the Mafia held what has been called the Appalachian conference. The major topic for discussion at that particular conference had to do with that crime syndicate getting out of the narcotic traffic business. I suggest the reason that syndicate decided to cease its
6000	HOUSE OF
Narcotic Drugs Control narcotic operation is because enforcement is becoming effective and the imposition of sentence is being extended.
I suggest that by this legislation we are aiming at the type of individual who is a kingpin in the drug traffic business, and the trafficker who is not a user of drugs himself, and I feel that the death sentence should be provided as an alternative to life imprisonment. I suggest that, because I am unable to see the necessity or justification for the state maintaining that type of individual at a cost of $2,000 per year which, applied to a life sentence of 10 or 20 years, would amount to $20,000 or $40,000 respectively.
In the field of medicine today cancerous areas of the body are removed for the protection of the remaining living tissue. I suggest in respect of the narcotics trafficking field, that traffickers who do not use narcotics can be likened to cancerous tissue and should be permanently removed.
Mr. Speaker, in the Globe and Mail of November 19, I960 there appeared an article under the heading "Dope Pushers Face Death". The following statement appears under the dateline Bangkok, November 16: Heroin and morphine manufacturers and peddlers face the death sentence or life imprisonment under a bill approved by the Thai cabinet today.
I suggest that indicates that other countries are dealing with this particular problem in an effective way.
During the introduction of this bill the minister indicated concern not only in its narrow aspect in Canada but also in the need for strengthening international enforcement.
I was interested to hear the hon. member for Vancouver East refer to the rather low per capita addiction in the United Kingdom. It has been suggested by some sources that those figures which he quoted are not too accurate because of the lack of supervision and availability of narcotics, and that the actual per capita number of addicts to opium in the United Kingdom is much higher than in Canada.
I should also like to draw to the attention of the hon. members of this house the fact that one of the largest processing countries of narcotic drugs is France, in the areas of Paris and Marseilles. Morphine is processed by laboratories there into refined heroin, yet there is practically no addiction problem in France. I suggest that the wholesale centre of the world for narcotics is located in Milan, Italy. It is estimated there are some 2,000 individuals employed in the wholesale narcotic business in that locality yet Italy does not have a drug addiction problem.
The point I have tried to make is that since we have concluded that life imprisonment is a deterrent, the penalty should be 

increased further because, as the hon. member for Vancouver East pointed out, the worst type of murder should carry the death penalty, to be meted out at the discretion of the court or the judge.
In respect of the locations of the treatment centres I suggest steps should be taken to ensure that they are located in the centre of communities rather than in the outlying areas. I suggest also that provision should be made for more extensive research on the part of voluntary organizations through which voluntary treatment can be obtained. An example of the type of organization to which I refer can be found in the narcotic addict foundation. That type of organization should be encouraged to develop, and I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will devote a portion of his budget to providing greater subsidies to those organizations which are now doing such excellent work on budgets of some $200,000 to $300,000.
I should also like to see consideration given to Canada's active participation in Interpol in an attempt to prevent narcotics coming into this country. I suggest we are concerned with the world-wide aspect of this problem and should, therefore, provide every co-operation, both financial and moral, in order to curtail this very vicious racket.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the minister wish to speak now?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words.


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


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up much time now, in view of the fact that we will be discussing the bill in some detail when we reach consideration in committee. However, I should like to make a few remarks as a result of speeches made by various hon. members during second reading stage. I was pleased, of course, to hear the enthusiastic-I think I can call it that-response of all hon. members who have spoken despite the fact that there were some things in connection with the suggestions with which we may not agree. I know that some of the suggestions were made with the best of intentions and in order to strengthen the bill further as hon. members see it.
The hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) spoke of the fact that the intent of the bill appeared to be to deal firmly but kindly with addicts and that this was inherent in the bill. We believe this to be so.

I should like to say I am well aware of the keen interest which the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) has had in this subject for many years. I realize his strong feelings. I should like to say how much I appreciate his words with respect to Canada's part in the conference at New York recently and his gratifying words concerning Mr. Robert Curran of my department. He said that I indicated that the treaty would be presented to parliament for ratification. What I actually said was, "I am happy to be able to say that Canada not only played an active and important role in the conference but is now taking the necessary steps to be in a position subject to the approval of parliament, to ratify the convention." I am given to understand that external affairs is now actually processing the convention but I am also of the impression-I may not be correct in this-that, following the examination by external affairs, an order in council may be sufficient rather than an actual presentation of the convention to the House of Commons.
I may have given the wrong impression in my opening remarks Mr. Speaker, in that it is my understanding that the major suppliers of legal opium for medical use are India and Turkey. I can give more details on that matter when we get into committee.
I am pleased that the matter of doctors and the use of legal narcotics by the medical profession has arisen. I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that sections 6 and 16 of the present act set out the circumstances under which a physician may administer or prescribe drugs and the circumstances wherein it is improper for him to do so.
It has been the subject of some criticism that the legislation should attempt in any way to define what is or is not proper professional treatment and practice. It has, of course, been the view of the department that the legislation does not attempt this. Nevertheless there has been a strong feeling by many members of the profession that this is the interpretation to be given to those sections and that no professional man should be called upon to decide whether he is or is not breaking the law in a matter involving his professional conscience and the treatment of a patient under his care. The bill, therefore, makes no reference to what constitutes legal employment of drugs by a professional person. The regulations, however, will cover this by providing that a medical practitioner may prescribe, administer or furnish a narcotic to a person if such person is a patient under his professional treatment and the narcotic is required for the condition for which the patient is receiving treatment. We feel this represents an important change in language,
Narcotic Drugs Control if not in principle, to that contained in sections 6 and 16 of the present act. This is thought to be a desirable change in that it leaves to professional interpretation what is or is not a proper use of a narcotic. Actually, we hope to encourage doctors to take more responsibility for and interest in the health and well-being of the addict. We can, of course, go into that in more detail in committee, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for London (Mr. Hal-penny) gave a detailed description of the legal use of narcotics. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) mentioned the fact that there were no explanatory notes to this bill. It is my understanding that no explanatory notes are necessary when it is a new bill. For instance, Bill No. C-71 respecting the civil service of Canada deals with legislation that we have had for a great many years. But it is new legislation. There are no explanatory notes to Bill No. C-71. I am told this is the reason why explanatory notes have been omitted here in the case of the narcotic bill.
When we are examining the bill in committee I shall be very glad to give the origin of each clause in relation to the present act, if the clause is not new.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Drysdale) mentioned another matter which the hon. member for Vancouver East had brought into the discussion. I think I should like to make a short statement on what has been called the British narcotics system. There is a great deal of popular misconception regarding the so-called British narcotics system, and I am glad this question has been raised because it gives me an opportunity to place on record the actual situation.
Whenever proposals are advanced respecting the problem of narcotic addiction the question that is almost invariably asked is why do we not try the British system. In the first place, I should like to assure hon. members that there is no such thing as the British system. The legislation in the United Kingdom does not differ in purpose or subject matter from the legislation in Canada. If anything, our legislation permits of more effective control, and in so far as trafficking is concerned, of more severe penalties.
It is not correct to say that in the United Kingdom addicts can get all the narcotics that they require from their family doctor. Doctors, in accordance with their professional judgment, are permitted to furnish narcotics to persons requiring such medication. This does not differ from the situation covered by the legislation which is before the house. Doctors in the United Kingdom are not per-mited to furnish narcotics indiscriminately or indefinitely to addicts; neither would doctors
6002	HOUSE OF
Narcotic Drugs Control be permitted to do so under this legislation. There is, accordingly, no difference in so far as the legal use of narcotics is concerned under the United Kingdom legislation and this legislation.
We feel that our methods of reporting and recording narcotic transactions covering legal distribution, coupled with the knowledge and experience of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, give us a very accurate picture of the narcotic situation in Canada and particularly as it relates to what are called criminal addicts. I would not like to draw any comparison between our methods of recording and reporting and those in force in the United Kingdom, but I am satisfied that our methods will favourably stand up to any comparison that can be made.
This becomes of some importance in trying to explain why we have some 3,000 criminal addicts in Canada whereas the United Kingdom authorities report a number fewer than 200. Regardless of whether the United Kingdom methods if applied to Canada would reflect with the same accuracy our numbers of addicts, we are satisfied that because there does not exist a criminal underworld narcotic traffic in the United Kingdom, the number of addicts is very substantially less than ours on a per capita basis.
Through the R.C.M.P. we have made intensive inquiries in the United Kingdom and have also studied reports of other investigations into this very aspect of the problem. The general view that is expressed is that while there exists a criminal underworld element in the United Kingdom the narcotic addict is considered to be at the lowest level and it follows that the narcotic trafficker is regarded as beyond the pale of even criminal society. Why this is so may perhaps lie in the mores and culture of the United Kingdom which is a far more homogeneous society than that of North America. Apart from this, there is simply no explanation that wholly explains the difference in the two situations. I can assure hon. members that our inability to explain the difference in a more satisfactory manner is not for want of studying the situation in both countries, and even the United Kingdom authorities are not able to give any better explanation than the one I have given.
As a matter of interest, the explanation I have given, in addition to being based on our own knowledge, is also based upon the report of a special study that was made by senior health officers of the New York state department of health who went to the United Kingdom for the express purpose of finding out something about the so-called British system and as a result they have reported that there is no such thing.


In conclusion, I should like to set at rest once and for all the misconception that the success of the British system, if there was such a thing, lies in the furnishing of legal narcotics to narcotic addicts. This is no more tolerated as a general practice in the United Kingdom than would be the case in Canada.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond mentioned the narcotic addiction foundation of British Columbia. I have their most recent report here. I have been studying it and I should like to mention that it is a very comprehensive study. I do not think there is anything more that I can say at this time. As I mentioned earlier, my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), and I will do our best to give as complete explanations as possible when we get into committee on the bill, and I should again like to express my appreciation of the constructive approach which has been taken on both sides of the house.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask one question? Is the minister able to make any comment at all on what I consider to be the most important matter of voluntary commitment for treatment?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am afraid not at the moment but I will be glad to go into the matter when we get into committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I wonder whether I might make one suggestion to the minister. I think the minister is probably hopeful that the bill will pass without undue delay, and as there are no explanatory notes opposite the clauses since the legislation is new may I suggest to the minister that as each clause is called he explain to the committee whether the provision is the same as already appears in the old act, whether it is a new departure or whether there is some slight amendment in order that we may not waste time.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would be very-glad to do so.


Harold Edward Winch: I think clause 1 is the only place where I can ask the minister the question I asked a moment ago with respect to voluntary commitment. It is not in the bill so clause 1 is the only place where I can raise the matter. I am not going to repeat what I said a few moments ago on second reading but I think this matter is of the utmost importance. Is consideration being given to that principle and, if not, why has it been omitted?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am told that the matter of voluntary commitment for treatment of a non-criminal addict would come under provincial jurisdiction. Certainly we would be very pleased to assist any provincial department or organization which was looking for assistance in this regard. I am told that the matter is a provincial responsibility at this stage.


Harold Edward Winch: I believe it does come within provincial responsibility but I would point out that in the bill provision is made for co-operation with respect to other matters that come within provincial jurisdiction. Why should this matter not be mentioned in the bill also in the same way as other matters which are already included? In support of the principle and in the hope that it will receive further consideration, I want to mention one point which I did not mention on second reading. Unless there is an indication in this legislation of provision for cooperation with the provinces with regard to voluntary commitment, I am afraid that if a province did anything about it you would not have any authority because under certain circumstances these people would have to be taken care of in a federal rehabilitation centre. That is the reason why I think this matter should be included in the bill.
I wish to raise one other argument in support of the principle. If a person wants to take treatment and voluntarily offers to do so, he cannot receive treatment under the legislation as it stands now. Immediately he admits he is a drug addict and wants to take treatment voluntarily but cannot do so, he then becomes known to the law officers of the crown as a drug addict and he is picked up under the criminal law. I think that is not psychologically good for such a person and will deter people from voluntarily offering to take treatment. No matter how you look at the matter, Mr. Chairman, I think every argument is in favour of something being included in the bill with respect to voluntary commitment so that these people will not be picked up on a criminal charge. I think this is a most serious matter and I sincerely hope that the two ministers will give very serious consideration to including some provision at this time.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: May I inquire from the ministers whether there is contemplated any possibility of treating people within penitentiaries as they are now constituted? The Minister of Justice said that an institution was to be established in southern British Columbia. He did not indicate whether it would be an institution of a type similar to a regular
Narcotic Drugs Control penitentiary or whether it would be more in the nature of a hospital to treat narcotic addiction.
The question just asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East points up the necessity of having something more than just a prison where these people can be treated. If there is any possibility at all now or in the future of addicts entering voluntarily for treatment,
I would assume it would be against the interests of society and against the interests of the addict to put the addict in a prison rather than a hospital if he has not been convicted of any offence. Therefore, until narcotic hospitals of some sort can be provided there would be no facilities for voluntary entrants.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct. What is contemplated here is the establishment of institutions to which people are committed for custody and for treatment. Under the new bill they will be committed as the result of a charge of possession or trafficking or importing. If they are then found to be addicts, they will be committed as a result of the criminal procedure.
The program envisaged in this bill contemplates also that the provinces may pass complementary legislation providing for committal to that institution of persons who need treatment. What my hon. friend from Vancouver East is referring to is something different, something which would go beyond that and would make provision for a person whose addiction is perhaps not so serious that he requires committal to custody for treatment. There would be, rather, an institution to which he may go voluntarily on terms arranged between himself and the institution. My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and his department, do have in mind the possibility of assistance to the provinces in setting up such institutions, call them what you will, hospitals, drug hospitals or treatment centres, to which persons might go voluntarily. There would be absent from these institutions the element of custody, as it is envisaged in this bill, custody for treatment.
The reason why I think such institutions would have to be quite separate, and why I think the person desiring voluntary treatment should not go to the institution contemplated by this bill, is that the institution to which persons are committed to custody for treatment obviously has to be operated under a regimen. This bill and the new Penitentiary Act together make provision for such institutions to be operated, in fact, under the authority of the Penitentiary Act. Release will only be permitted when the parole board says it is in the interest of society to release the inmates. You will see that there is

Narcotic Drugs Control definitely an element of custody, although the purpose of the custody is treatment. It would not be, in our view, convenient nor would it be acceptable to persons wishing to go to an institution where they are voluntary patients, to have them in the same place where, in fact, you must have a regimen and where the period during which persons stay there is not subject to their own desires but is set by authority. I do not think you can have the two types of institution run together, nor do I think you can have the two types of inmates there, one group who are there voluntarily and can leave anytime they want and the other group who are there in custody and can only leave when the parole board certifies it is in the public interest for them to do so.
A different kind of institution would be necessary to meet the case put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Niagara Falls. As I have said, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his department have instituted some discussions with the provinces to explore the possibility of federal-provincial cooperation in the setting up of such institutions.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry, but I just cannot see that argument. If a person is an addict then, of necessity, that person has a quantity of narcotic in his or her possession almost daily; that is axiomatic. I do not know the exact figure now, but two or three years ago the majority of the women in the women's section of the Kingston penitentiary were from British Columbia. They were not there as a result of a charge of being in possession but because they were addicts. I imagine the same situation prevails now. They require treatment.
What is the difference in approach under this new plan? These women are there not because they participated in a bank robbery, or for breaking and entering or for prostitution, they are there because they are addicts. What is the difference, then, between the person who has been placed in custody under this new law and someone who voluntarily goes to an institution for treatment? They both require exactly the same thing. Is it not, in some sense, a duplication to have two such institutions? We are going to need very experienced personnel in connection with this particular program. I appreciate that there may be a different approach to the person who volunteers for treatment, but why have two such institutions when the purpose is the same?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Because of the essential difference to which my hon. friend has just

referred; that one group would be in the institution for treatment because they went there voluntarily, and the other group would be in the institution because they were committed either as a result of a criminal trial or under the appropriate provincial legislation. I am sure if my hon. friend stops to reflect, he will appreciate that it would be, first, unacceptable to persons who wanted to go to an institution voluntarily for treatment to go to one run by the penitentiaries branch and where necessarily, if unfortunately, the atmosphere is that of a place where persons are committed under the Criminal Code. People simply would not go to that institution voluntarily and, with respect, I do not think it is sensible to suggest they would. This type of institution we conclude, therefore, should be designed to house those persons who are committed under our federal law or under the appropriate provincial legislation when it is passed. Persons who, recognizing they are drug addicts and wanting to take treatment, but also to retain their freedom, we hope will before too long find other institutions to which they can go voluntarily.
The best distinction would be that a hospital is a place to which a person ordinarily goes voluntarily because he knows that he is sick or his doctor tells him he should go to hospital. He can leave, within certain unimportant limitations, whenever he desires. However, a mental hospital, for instance, in most cases is a place to which a person is committed under the appropriate provincial legislation because the legislators have said: in our view a person who is suffering from mental disease may be such that it is in society's interest that he be committed to a mental institution until such time as he may be cured. In the kind of mental institution of which I am thinking, the people are not there voluntarily and they are not free to leave whenever they wish. It seems to me that is about the best illustration I can find of the difference between the institution contemplated under this bill, where the inmate is not there voluntarily, he is not free to decide for himself whether he will leave, and the other type of institution about which my hon. friend is talking which would be necessary to serve a person who, recognizing his own illness and not having been convicted of any offence or not having been committed under provincial legislation, simply wants to go to an institution for treatment. I do not think you can mix the two kinds of institution, physically or even under one administration.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I wonder if the minister could clarify the situation with regard to

the narcotics addiction foundation in British Columbia, because that is an institution which is, at present, doing an excellent job. I am backing up the hon. member for Vancouver East. Where the section deals with the possession aspect, what provision is there in the code or how would such an organization be exempt from these provisions and be in a position to have a gradual withdrawal from an addict who comes voluntarily to this organization?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That matter could be taken care of by the regulations under the new bill.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Is it the intention that there be a specific regulation dealing with an organization such as the narcotic addict foundation? As the matter stands now in the legislation, those organizations will be wiped Out.


Jay Waldo Monteith: As I mentioned earlier when I closed the debate on second reading, as to the matter of doctors and the medical profession, we wanted the handling of this situation at this stage under regulations to provide greater flexibility than was the case under sections 6 and 16, I think it is, of the present act. Certainly we are doing this to encourage doctors to take a keener and greater interest in the health and wellbeing of such patients.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: With great respect may I say that I do not think the question has been answered. The minister has referred to the Criminal Code which sets forth very clearly a definition of what possession consists of. As I read section 3 of this act, the narcotic addict foundation of British Columbia would have drugs in their possession. I do not wish to prolong the discussion. What I am trying to do is to make sure that this organization which is doing a worth-while job is clearly exempted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Clause 3 of the bill states as follows:
Except as authorized by this act or the regulations, no person shall have a narcotic in his possession.
So when my colleague is able in conjunction with the provinces to arrive at a point where they can set up such voluntary treatment centres, then the regulations may be altered in order to provide that it is lawful for that treatment centre to be in possession of narcotics for the purpose of administration.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: That is the point I want to clarify.


Mr. Broome:: I just want to support the remarks of my colleague the hon. member for 90205-6-379
Narcotic Drugs Control Burnaby-Richmond and also those of the hon. member for Vancouver East. After all, this is very much a Vancouver problem. Hon. members on all sides of the house agree that this bill is a major step forward and that the ministers are to be commended. However, there seems to be a gap in one spot namely, in the line of voluntary commitment and also along the lines of drugs being supplied through an out-patient clinic or through a federally administered operation at cost where these drugs are required by the addict and where medical opinion says that the man cannot be reduced below this minimum level as far as drugs are concerned.
The question of the profit factor or of taking the profit factor out is extremely important and this in effect would tend to do that. What we want to do is to get at the people who are traffickers and who are creating new addicts daily. These are the people who have expanded this pool of drug addicts to its present size. The bill takes care of those people we are going to put in the penitentiary. But what about the people who should be treated as sick persons, as is the intent of this legislation, in an out-patient type of clinic where they go voluntarily and where there is no control? Where this post sentence rehabilitation takes place we are going to have social workers or case workers looking after these penitentiary inmates when they get out in order to try to rehabilitate them. Here you have a person who has not gone to penitentiary, a person who has an even better chance of rehabilitation than has the person who has had to be sent to a penitentiary. It seems to me that this is within the area of concern of the department of national welfare. The minister more or less points this out in his remarks. He says this will be in agreement, in consultation and in co-operation with the provinces. But at the same time the federal government is taking the lead in this matter and I should like to see the federal government perhaps carrying it a little bit further. It may work a little bit faster and better than it would with the particular government we have today in British Columbia. I do not want to make this a political matter. This bill has been non-political all the way through. We all agree that it is good. We all agree that it is a marvellous step forward. However, there seems to be a bit of a gap in that field of taking care of what you might call the person who is just starting to become a drug addict, the person who comes along and voluntarily says, "I am going to reform" but who needs help, if you like-


Harold Edward Winch: Just on the same basis-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think this question should be answered before six o'clock. Irrespective

Business of the House
of whatever may be said here, and however desirous we may be of solving the problem of the addict who requires help from the medical or health point of view exclusively, the fact of the matter is that this is a part of health and the primary responsibility is that of the provinces. No matter how ardent we are in our desire to provide these good things, it would be first an intrusion into the field of provincial responsibility and authority and second, in my opinion, an improper acceptance of a burden which is not entirely ours. That would mean, of course, that we would pay all the costs.
We have gone a long way here in providing a system and legislative authority for the reception and treatment in our institutions of persons who are committed under provincial legislation. My hon. friend would go further than that and he is talking about what is purely the provision of health facilities in out-patient clinics. Nothing could be more clearly a matter of provincial responsibility. My colleague has already initiated discussions with the provinces to see whether they are prepared to take any initial steps at all. We are prepared to co-operate. However, the kind of institution being talked about is quite different from the kind which it is our responsibility and our authority to operate.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe that by arrangement there are some changes in the estimates to be called. If the house leader would indicate them so that they would be on Hansard it would be helpful.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder whether I first might ask the house to consider this possibility. Yesterday, owing to the recess of the house in the afternoon as a result of the death of one of our members, we missed the private members' hour from five o'clock to six o'clock and we have not much time left now in this session. Would the house consent to substitute tomorrow the hour from five o'clock to six o'clock for the hour that was lost on private members' bills on Tuesday? There are a half a dozen bills in hand and this would give us an opportunity to deal with them. May I have an expression of opinion on that matter first?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Although I have had no previous warning about this matter, Mr. Speaker, if it were understood that the time were taken for private bills only, I think we would see no objection because the time was lost to petitioners who have a reasonable right to expect these bills to be dealt with.

However, if the private bills could be disposed of, say in 15 minutes or 20 minutes, I would hope that then we could go on with government business which, after all, is the most urgent business before the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This comes rather as a surprise to us. I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my colleagues, but I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate has expressed a reasonable view and we agree with that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I had intended suggesting Saturday, from five to six, but perhaps Thursday would be a more suitable time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may interrupt the leader of the house, I think Saturday would be a very much more suitable time. I wish I had thought of it myself. It does seem rather unreasonable to take this time for private bills. Certainly, those people who are interested in them can be here on Saturday; there are always enough people, and anyone interested in promoting these bills could be here on Saturdays. The minister having made that suggestion, I may say we should be happy to give consent to having them on Saturday rather than on Thursday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps we might leave that open for further consideration.
With regard to the business for tomorrow, a change has been required in the estimates I announced. This is due to the fact that some hon. members are away and it has followed a good deal of negotiation. I regret the fact that I have not had an opportunity to discuss some of these changes with the hon. member for Kootenay West. Anyway, what is proposed for tomorrow is that we start with the estimates of the Department of Transport upon which we spent about three days earlier on, followed, if they are finished, by the estimates of the Department of Labour. Then, as a special arrangement, on Friday we would start off with the estimates of the Department of Justice. There are not many items left there. Then, in the time that might be available on Friday after the estimates of the Department of Justice have been completed we shall consider the estimates of the Department of Transport and the Department of Labour. Then, on Saturday, by arrangement, we would complete the estimates of the Department of Fisheries and deal with the Department of Forestry. If we make good progress, the estimates of the Department of Defence Production are available.
If we could complete this week the estimates of the Department of Transport, the Department of Justice, the Department of Fisheries, and, perhaps, the Department of

Forestry, I think it would be a reasonable piece of work and we would then be fairly sure of completing the other estimates later on this month. I think the house now realizes that we should press on with some of these matters and those estimates on which a number of days have already been spent will
Business of the House
not, I imagine, detain the committee very much longer. That is the order of business, Mr. Speaker.
It being five minutes after six o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
90205-6-379J

Question



ANSWER TO QUESTION

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Hanbidge: 1.	What is the rate per hushel per day (or per month) for storage charges for grain (a) in a local elevator (b) in a terminal elevator?
2.	What is the amount of money paid in each year by the government of Canada on account of grain storage charges for each of the crop years 1954-55 to 1959-60 inclusive?
3.	What is the total amount of money paid by the government of Canada or the Canadian wheat board to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the total amount paid to Canadian National Railways for demurrage on freight cars carrying or
1. (a) August	1,	1954	to	July	31,	1955August	1,	1955	to	July	31,	1956August	1,	1956	to	July	31,	1957August	1,	1957	to	July	31,	1958August	1,	1958	to	July	31,	1959August	1,	1959	to	July	31,	1960
storing grain from western Canada in each of the crop years 1954-55 to 1959-60 inclusive?
4.	What is the total amount of money paid by the government of Canada or the Canadian wheat board for storage charges on grain grown in western Canada in each of the crop years 1954-55 to 1959-60 inclusive (a) for the storage on farms to the farmers of (i) Alberta (ii) Manitoba (iii) Saskatchewan; (b) to each of the grain terminal elevator companies in (i) British Columbia (ii) on Hudson Bay (iii) Fort William and Port Arthur (iv) any other grain terminal elevator company in Canada; (c) to the following companies for storage of grain in local elevators (i) the Alberta pool elevators (the Alberta Co-Operative Wheat Producers Limited) (ii) the Manitoba pool elevators (the Manitoba Co-Operative Wheat Producers Limited) (iii) the Saskatchewan pool elevators (the Saskatchewan Co-Operative Wheat Producers Limited); (d) to each of the line grain or elevator companies operating in western Canada for the storage of grain in local grain elevators?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):
Cents per bushel per day
Wheat	Oats	Barley1/35	1/35	1/351/35	1/35	1/351/35	1/35	1/351/30	1/30	1/301/30	1/30	1/301/30	1/30	1/30
1. (b)
					Cents per bushel per day				
Wheat	Oats	Barley	Crop year	Lake- head	Pacific coast	Mills	Govern- ment interior terminals	Churchill	Lake- head	Pacific coast	Lake- head	Pacific coast terminalsAugust 1, 1954 to July 31, 1955	1/35	1/35	1/35	1/45	1/30-except that from Oct. 15/54 to July 25/55 the maximum storage is 4c. per bushel for the entire period.	1/35	1/35	1/35	1/35August 1, 1955 to July 31, 1956	1/35	1/35	1/35	1/45	1/30-except that from Oct. 20/55 to July 25/56 the maximum storage is 5c. per bushel for the entire period.	1/35	1/35	1/35	1/35August 1, 1956 to July 31, 1957	1/30	1/30	1/30	1/45	1/30-except that from Oct. 20/56 to July 25/57 the maximum storage is 5c. per bushel for the entire period.	1/30	1/30	1/30	1/30August 1, 1957 to July 31, 1958	. 1/30	1/30	1/30	1/45	1/30-except that from Oct. 20/57 to July 25/58 the maximum storage is 5c. per bushel for the entire period.	1/30	1/30	1/30	1/30August 1, 1958 to July 31, 1959	. 1/30	1/30	1/30	1/45	1/30-except that from Oct. 20/58 to July 25/59 the maximum storage is 5c. per bushel for the entire period.	1/30	1/30	1/30	1/30August 1, 1959 to July 31, 1960	. 1/30	1/30	1/30	1/45	1/30-except that from Oct. 20/59 to July 25/60 the maximum storage is 5c. per bushel for the entire period.	1/30	1/30	1/30	1/30
Question
2.
Carrying charges paid by the government	Storage portion	Interest portion	Crop Year	Rate	Amount	Rate	Amount	Rate	Amount(cents)	(dollars)	(cents)	(dollars)	(cents)	(dollars)1054 55	_	Nil	Nil	-	Nil1055-5fi	03970	31,486,187	.02857	22,658,951	.01113	8,827,2361055-57	04058	28,816,766	.02857	20,288,196	.01201	8,528,5701057 58	04241	35,553,509	.02857	23,951,043	.01384	11,602,4661Q58 50	04780	39,825,304	.03333	27,769,401	.01447	12,055,9031959-60	04987	43,604,072	.03333	29,142,244	.01654	14,461,828
3. Nil.
4. (a) Nil.
(b) The board records do not contain details relevant to storage paid to individual terminal elevator companies principally because most of the storage at the lakehead is paid to the lake shippers' clearance association and not to individual companies. Storage paid at the lakehead comprises the largest item in this question and hence without its inclusion any detailed analysis of storage paid at other terminal points by company would appear to have little value However on the statement of country elevator storage paid to individual companies, 4 (c), included is the total of the terminal and mill stoiage paid by the board for the crop years indicated.



ADDENDUM

[Stage Direction]
4. (c) With respect to the attached statements the following factors should be considered:
1.	The Canadian wheat board cannot allocate its terminal storage charges by company by reason of the operation of the lake shippers'clearance association. The board deposits its warehouse receipts with this association and when a shipment is made ex the lakehead the lake shippers apply the * ol 2^est^.e^slj;ofrr^arJl.1
for the grade involved irrespective of the company and they invoice the Canadian wheat board for the total storage involved in the shipment. The lake shippers clearance association then makes settlement for the storage to the terminal elevator, or elevators, from which the grain was shipped.
2.	The storage charges in respect to oats and barley do not include any charges that originate at points east of the lakehead. Ex the lakehead the board sells oats and barley basis in store and hence all storage charges at points east of the lakehead are for buyers account.
6010	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Question
4. (c)
[Stage Direction]
Company	August 1, 1954 to July 31, 1955 Storage	August 1, 1955 to July 31, 1956 Storage	August 1, 1956 to July 31, 1957 Storage	August 1, 1957 to July 31, 1958 Storage	August 1, 1958 to July 31, 1959 Storage	August 1, 1959 to July 31, 1960 Storage	Total wheats	$	$	t	%	s	$Alberta Co-operative Wholesale	
13	13Alberta Pacific Grain Co	
1,173,062	1,311,165	1,320,815	1,398,427	1,574,224	1,819,900	8,597,593Alberta Wheat Pool	
2,318,022	2,589,095	2,783,527	2,893,030	3,134,506	3,713,583	17,431,763Byers Flour Mills	
4,974	4,501	4,362	2,734	4,859	5,333	26,763Canada Packers Ltd	92	40	93	106	228	749Canada West Grain Company Ltd	12,703	15,481	12,083	15,028	23,143	79,646Canadian Consolidated Grain Co. Ltd	331,166	363,599	442,496	307,233	669	1,764,693Conger-Sanborn Co. Ltd	
15,989	13,019	14,000	7,622	9,274	10,482	70,386Eastern Terminal Elevator	
1,111	1,335	1,486	1,598	4,645	9,710	19,885Ellison Milling & Elevator Co. Ltd	158,287	147,946	157,467	163,772	184,474	964,034Federal Grain Ltd	1,549,164	1,713,178	2,014,346	2,033,204	2,222,172	11,100,988Fraser-Hill Ltd	
3,096	3,121	3,120	1,759	1	-	11,097Grande Prairie Grain Co. Ltd	
5,345	6,481	2,689	-	-	14,515Harrison Milling & Grain Company	
1,861	2,209	2,331	3,015	3,506	3,599	16,521Inter-Ocean Grain Co. Ltd	49,041	57,119	61,910	60,743	68,502	345,621Independent Grain Co	
(76)	-	-	-	-	-	(76)Lake of the Woods Milling Co. Ltd	245,325	307,267	156,247	-	-	954,047Manitoba Pool Elevators	
1,107,195	1,020,534	1,074,116	1,437,817	1,436,361	1,689,532	7,765,555Maple Leaf Milling	
9,208	11,549	14,151	15,066	15,615	18,497	84,086Makepeace Elevator	
(2)	-	-	-	-	-	(2)Midland & Pacific Grain Corporation	
11,247	12,237	12,780	11,116	12,070	11,496	70,946Milk River Grain	-	-	-	-	-	2,474	2,474MacEachern Milling	
1,114	1,476	2,274	(43)	-	-	4,821McCabe Grain Co. Ltd	350,797	389,343	461,528	496,363	541,607	2,585,360McNab Flour Mills	
807	613	-	-	-	-	1,420National Grain Company Ltd	
1,185,231	1,182,064	1,282,456	1,421,724	1,488,803	1,697,121	8,257,399National Flour Mills	
958	1,560	2,341	875	-	-	5,734Ogilvie Flour Mills Co. Ltd	
472,409	455,215	481,824	779,164	920,776	540,357	3,649,745Paterson & Sons Ltd., N.M	404,863	444,102	540,846	533,483	596,355	2,901,999Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd	
261,965	277,012	303,118	348,962	369,730	409,795	1,970,582Pioneer Grain Co. Ltd	2,110,653	2,377,826	2,795,998	2,982,287	3,427,700	15,694,821Red River Grain Co. Ltd	
(7)	36	25	(28)	773	96	895Riediger & Sons, J. P	3,842	3,439	4,990	4,417	5,384	26,303Ritz, Henry	
1,409	1,301	913	1,399	677	542	6,241St. Boniface Grain & Feed Co	
9,086	17,085	14,268	8,290	-	-	48,729Saskatchewan Wheat Pool	
5,315,666	5,174,130	5,770,305	6,531,042	6,844,997	7,605,874	37,242,014Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society	
17,832	17,603	16,936	27,553	23,469	30,209	133,602Searle Grain Co. Ltd	
1,577,586	1,619,552	1,712,572	1,887,672	1,924,507	2,176,976	10,898,865Sirluk, I	
1,024	(12)	-	-	-	-	1,012Swift Current Flour Mills	
2,024	3,278	5,143	7,764	6,270	7,589	32,068United Grain Growers Ltd	
2,418,509	2,547,134	2,636,354	2,966,892	3,489,239	4,433,371	18,491,499Union Supply Co. Ltd	
1,615	1,819	1,996	629	-	-	6,059Victoria Products Co. Ltd	-	-	-	1,744	8,393	5,229	15,366Waskesiu Mills Ltd	
3,566	4,471	5,437	5,997	4,802	3,779	28,052Wetaskiwin Milling Co. Ltd	-	-	-	1,855	1,810	1,671	5,336W'eyburn Flour Mills Ltd	
97,984	94,074	114,010	129,915	132,770	146,739	715,492Winkler Milling Co. Ltd	
3,449	4,072	2,634	3,314	2,414	3,952	19,835Yorkton Milling Co. Ltd	
1,786	4,059	4,389	5,154	2,454	3,954	21,796Storage paid on wheat stored in country elevators	
21,093,302	21,597,621	23,409,712	26,550,062	28,013,581	31,422,094	152,086,372Terminal and mill storage	
11,986,292	11,640,449	10,610,668	12,905,008	11,793,361	13,199,781	72,135,559
Question
4. (c)
[Stage Direction]
Company
Alberta Co-operative Wholesale	
Alberta Pacific Grain Company	
Alberta Wheat Pool	
Byers Flour Mills	
Canada Packers Limited	
Canada West Grain Company Ltd	
Canadian Consolidated Grain Co. Ltd	
Conger-Sanborn Company Ltd	
Eastern Terminal Elevator	
Federal Grain Limited	
Fraser-Hill Limited	
Grande Prairie Grain Company Ltd	
Harrison Milling & Grain Company	
Inter-Ocean Grain Company Ltd	
Independent Grain Company	
Lake of the Woods Milling Co. Ltd	
Manitoba Pool Elevators	
Maple Leaf Milling	
Makepeace Elevator	
Midland & Pacific Grain Corporation	
MacEachern Milling	
McCabe Grain Company Ltd	
McNab Flour Mills	
National Grain Company Ltd	
National Flour Mills	
Ogilvie Flour Mills Company Ltd	
Paterson & Sons Limited, N.M	
Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd	
Pioneer Grain Company Ltd	
Red River Grain Company Ltd	
Riediger & Sons, J. P	
Ritz, Henry	
St. Boniface Grain & Feed Company	
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool	
Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society....
Searle Grain Company Ltd	
Sirluk, I	
Swift Current Flour Mills	
United Grain Growers Ltd	
Union Supply Company Ltd	
Victoria Products Company Ltd	
Ellison Milling Company Ltd	
Waskesiu Mills Limited	
Wetaskiwin Milling Company Ltd	
Weyburn Flour Mills Ltd	
Winkler Milling Company Ltd	
Yorkton Milling Company Ltd	
Storage paid on oats stored in country elevators
Terminal storage	
August 1, 1954	August 1, 1955	August 1, 1956	August 1, 1957	August 1, 1958	August 1, 1959	to	to	to	to	to	to	July 31, 1955	July 31, 1956	July 31, 1957	July 31, 1958	July 31, 1959	July 31, 1960	Storage	Storage	Storage	Storage	Storage	Storage	Total Oats$	$	$	$	s	$	s34	3496.945	75,520	180,358	292,042	122,456	75,976	843,297267,865	197,529	412,464	602,288	344,088	223,506	2,047,740788	372	672	(126)	350	679	2,735195	117	115	114	321	109	9712,494	1,772	11,734	103,057	20,483	15,050	154,59029,099	40,404	67,915	(3,580)	48,161	90	182.08979	109	129	283	a)	5	604417	427	1,129	1,580	4,702	5,022	13,27770,780	89,986	156,732	156,784	135,327	98,529	708,1381,081	1,176	1,314	323	2	-	3,89612,902	8,424	2,982	-	-	-	24,308243	415	637	384	235	77	1,9915,230	7,354	16,308	17,745	16,001	12,224	74,86216,406	25,569	51,889	30,406	-	124,27081,017	119,577	321,442	234,986	267,207	150,697	1,174,9261,722	1,021	1,877	3,767	1,869	3,152	13,408263	1,007	1,475	(12)	-	-	2,73315,957	21,684	38,054	39,273	22,224	20,465	157,657(6)	28	-	-	-	-	2293,744	103,615	189,136	265,723	185,705	153,261	991,18489	130	435	411	-	-	1,06518,753	31,329	54,023	78,300	79,778	38,131	300,31422,791	35,305	74,412	75,382	61,307	36,653	305,85016,878	17,933	30,556	35,399	27,892	23,544	152.202107,972	114,840	178,035	201,167	156,027	137,860	895,901638	3,214	838	2,144	1,450	517	8,801675	805	571	721	1,470	441	4,683268	318	1,051	948	330	383	3,2983,039	8,175	14,037	8,135	-	-	33,386393,946	521,271	708,517	711,515	543,670	324,628	3,203,5473,374	4,624	13,909	10,269	11,789	5,613	49,578174,119	198,645	331,300	462,505	359,784	266,467	1,792,820698	(4)	-	-	-	-	69436	28	31	66	7	2	170296,502	294,742	598,788	832,928	600,423	461,312	3,084,695400	583	694	270	-	-	1,947685	891	604	2,180253	177	457	419	(13)	246	1,539752	869	884	1,252	1,168	468	5,393-	358	629	1,712	2,699670	3,372	2,543	1,177	874	(660)	7,9762,228	1,675	4,862	5,550	5,268	4,150	23,7334	1	-	-	2	24	311,741,346	1,934,138	3,472,305	4,174,638	3,021,876	2,060,937	16,405,240532,835	403,765	317,059	664,707	775,296	282,522	2,976,1846012	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Question
90205-6-380
[Stage Direction]
4. (c)
Company	August 1, 1954 to July 31. 1955 Storage	August 1, 1955 to July 31, 1956 Storage	August 1, 1956 to July 31, 1957 Storage	August 1, 1957 to July 31, 1958 Storage	August 1, 1958 to July 31, 1959 Storage	August 1, 1959 to July 31, 1960 Storage	Total barleys	3	$	t	$	$	sAlberta Co-operative Wholesale	
40	40Alberta Pacific Grain Co	
355,705	334,085	310,551	480,615	292,839	340,042	2,113,837Alberta Wheat Pool	
636,307	573,230	472,383	817,195	458,040	618,344	3,575,499Byers Flour Mills	
856	384	886	1,453	759	376	4,714Canada Packers Ltd	
265	129	331	440	120	458	1,743Canada West Grain Co. Ltd	
1,787	4,145	6,133	14,586	20,026	19,990	66,667Canadian Consolidated Grain Co. Ltd	
35,672	37,488	29,763	34,383	19,757	25	157,088Conger-Sanborn Co. Ltd	
171	368	438	58	90	114	1,239Eastern Terminal Elevator	
1,313	894	464	639	1,337	1,479	6,126Ellison Milling & Elevator Co. Ltd	
4,969	3,802	3,019	4,763	6,670	3,201	26.424Federal Grain Ltd	
128,275	122,347	108,206	165,104	141,122	206,913	871,967Fraser-Hill Ltd	
396	197	535	15	3	-	1,146Grande Prairie Grain Co. Ltd	
4,618	7,881	2,526	-	-	-	15,025Harrison Milling & Grain Co	
1,323	1,043	622	956	477	382	4,803Inter-Ocean Grain Co. Ltd	
4,827	4,674	4,719	9,289	6,939	11,942	42,390Independent Grain Co	
28	-	-	-	-	-	28Lake of the Woods Milling Co. Ltd	
27,463	32,303	19,289	15,049	-	-	94,104Manitoba Pool Elevators	
237,517	204,689	129,033	156,512	210,818	378,280	1.316,849Maple Leaf Milling	
122	104	a)	-	-	-	225Makepeace Elevator	-	-	-	-	-Midland & Pacific Grain Corporation	
8,207	5,695	4,841	7,601	7,884	11,127	45,355Milk River Grain	-	-	-	-	-	200	200MacEachem Milling	
1,319	2,060	1,794	161	-	-	5,334McCabe Grain Co. Ltd	
32,190	26,975	24,044	27,902	26,880	47,826	185,817Me Nab Flour Mills	
72	20	-	-	-	-	92National Grain Co. Ltd	
214,124	202,914	193,532	318,303	199,324	258,088	1,386,285National Flour Mills	
14	112	208	(15)	-	-	319Ogilvie Flour Mills Co. Ltd	
44,142	43,693	25,843	39,549	66,524	53,337	273,088Paterson & Sons Ltd., N.M	
43,352	33,781	23,540	21,740	35,386	72,868	230,667Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd	
49,435	49,396	39,600	48,429	37,040	45,453	269,353Pioneer Grain Co. Ltd	
239,688	206,371	212,715	321,167	182,464	208,950	1,371,355Red River Grain Co. Ltd	
3,469	3,692	885	1,843	303	628	10,820Riediger & Sons J. P	
2,311	2,463	800	350	863	1,016	7,803Ritz, Henry	
880	857	171	248	273	152	2,581St. Boniface Grain & Feed Co	
3,746	5,336	5,342	2,049	-	-	16,473Saskatchewan Wheat Pool	
324,611	346,640	345,662	533,073	420,245	512,682	2,482,913Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Soc	
5,400	4,104	2,528	2,113	4,484	7,719	26,348Searle Grain Co. Ltd	
318,171	295,486	290,369	460,702	271,265	371,333	2,007,326Sirluk, I	
1,384	-	-	-	-	-	1,384Swift Current Flour Mills	
22	100	4	54	95	158	325United Grain Growers Ltd	
637,289	580,930	512,626	879,905	608,993	831,335	4,051,078Union Supply Co. Ltd	
61	184	150	59	-	-	454Victoria Products Company Ltd	-	-	-	615	1,197	1,259	3,071Waskesiu Mills Ltd	
299	537	607	1,566	2,211	2,308	7,528Wetaskiwin Milling Company Ltd	-	-	-	1,800	2,181	941	4,922Weyburn Flour Mills Ltd	
785	2,726	2,646	1,561	1,149	1,273	10,140Winkler Milling Company Ltd	
568	419	(2)	(40)	19	97	1,061Yorkton Milling Company Ltd	
33	-	76	60	43	249	461Storage paid on barley stored in Country elevators	
3,373,226	3,142,254	2,776,878	4,371,744	3,027,820	4,010,545	20,702,467Terminal storage	
797,653	633,939	941,585	971,927	1,369,556	642,789	5,357,449
Question
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 8, 1961

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