1961-05-30

CAPE BRETON


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement concerning the coal mining industry of Cape Breton. Hon. members will recall that during the past year arrangements were made between the governments of Nova Scotia and Canada on the one hand, and the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation on the other, which successfully averted the closing of three Nova Scotia coal mines last winter. At that time it was agreed that to offset losses incurred by the corporation in maintaining these mines in operation, a special subvention of $1 per ton would be paid on coal shipped by the corporation to non-subvention areas from their mines in Nova Scotia between April 1, 1960 and May 31, 1961. The province participated in the cost of this subvention.
During the past year the markets for coal here and everywhere in the world have continued to shrink, and the annual productive capacity of the corporation's various mines is now substantially greater than the possible level of annual sales. In these circumstances, if the special subvention should be allowed to terminate on May 31 and no alternative assistance be provided, the corporation would be obliged to proceed with the scheduled closures this season and many coal miners in the Cape Breton area would be laid off in the space of less than three months.
The government has discussed this difficult situation further with the corporation, the labour union and the government of Nova Scotia in an endeavour to determine the extent of the problem and the steps that might be taken at this time to alleviate it. I am now able to announce that the subvention of $1 per ton, of which 80 cents will be provided by the federal government and 20 cents by the government of Nova Scotia, up to a total sum of $300,000 per annum, will be continued for the period from June 1, 1961 to August 1, 1962, on the express understanding that the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation will provide satisfactory assurance to the governments that this assistance will be used to good advantage in maintaining as much employment as possible in
the mines. Because of the shrinkage of markets the corporation will be obliged to reduce the number of miners on its payroll.
Authority for this continuing subvention is contained in order in council P.C. 1961/762 of May 25, 1961, and the required funds will be provided in the vote of the dominion coal board.
The government of Canada recognizes that subventions do not constitute a complete long term solution to the problem of employment in the Cape Breton area, and that other kinds of measures are also involved. Indeed, nationwide programs such as the vocational training assistance plan and the tax incentive arrangements included in the recent supplementary budget are already available for use in such areas.
The government considered, however, that as miners are displaced from employment with the corporation this season, other special steps should be taken at this time to assist in the provision of alternative employment. Parliament will therefore be asked to provide an amount of $1.5 million which will be set aside for approved projects to provide alternative employment this year in the Cape Breton area. Such projects will be considered on their individual merits, taking into account the degree of participation by the province in each case.
These two measures are being introduced to deal with the specific and immediate situation in the coal mining areas. The government of Canada is continuing to study the long term problems involved and the recommendations on the subject by the royal commission on coal, and further announcements will be made from time to time.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that every hon. member as well as the people of the areas concerned will welcome the announcement made this morning by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. However, as the minister indicated, this is an alternative assistance to prevent the immediate closure of the mines involved, and I am sure it will be regarded as just another one of this government's crisis decisions. The house and the country know very well that as early as 1958, at the time of the first major post-war shut-down, this government was warned of the dangers inherent in the situation. At that time we were ridiculed by the government, just as we are at this very moment by some of the members concerned.

Continuation of Coal Subvention


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I should remind the hon. member for Gloucester that such a statement is made for the information of the house. It is a statement of a factual character on policy that has been adopted, and it is made by leave of the house for its information rather than having it made elsewhere. It is not made to initiate a debate. The practice of comment by a spokesman for each party has been accepted by the house and is well established, but such comment is not to be in the form of debate. As the hon. member was expressing opinions which are quite controversial, I thought I should warn him that it is not in accordance with our practice to debate the statement at this time. There will be ample opportunity to do so. Really all that is permitted is preliminary comment with a reservation of approval if that is the case.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that as a member of the opposition I had the right to say that this alternative measure announced by the minister this morning will not meet the problems of the coal miners. It will only mean further delay. As we have suggested before in the house, what is really needed is a comprehensive program of scientific and industrial research to find additional uses for coal in order to help to maintain employment. This is certainly not included in the announcement made by the minister this morning.
We are also disappointed that in the announcement the minister did not take care of the situation in the Springhill area, where a number of miners have been out of work since 1958, notwithstanding the representations that have been made to the government in recent weeks by the town council of Springhill.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the measure announced by the minister will only provide temporary relief, and it does not meet the problems of the coal miners of Cape Breton.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made this morning is in large part a continuation of the situation that has existed for some time involving the payment of a subvention of $1 per ton. I was not able to understand clearly from the minister's statement whether the three coal mines scheduled to be shut down this summer will in fact be shut down or whether operations will be continued but with a very substantial reduction in the number of miners employed. I should like to have that point clarified.
As far as we are concerned, the government has not taken adequate action in this area, particularly because it is an area of very high unemployment where not long ago 18 per

cent of the labour force were out of work. I think what is required here is a guaranteed income to the miners so that if they are displaced from their jobs they will have a substantial income to maintain themselves and their families. The $1.5 million for approved employment projects will be of great benefit, but I suggest that what is required is a comprehensive program to deal with the general unemployment situation in this area, and that by and large the announcement represents merely a continuation of the existing conditions.

On the orders of the day:


Hédard-J. Robichaud: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can the minister assure the house that, as a result of the announcement he made this morning, the three mines in Cape Breton intended to be closed early this summer will now be kept open and the miners will be kept employed until August 1, 1962?
(Translation):


Paul Comtois: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question of my hon. friend from Gloucester, whom I am glad to see back in his chair, I must say I have nothing to do with the decision as to whether such or such a mine will be closed down. The Dominion Coal Corporation is a private industry, and it is therefore the responsibility of its management to decide which mines will be closed.
I announced this morning that we were prepared to pay a dollar a ton for coal shipped outside the subvention area, with a contribution of 20 per cent on the part of the provincial government, up to a maximum of $300,000, but my authority does not go beyond that. It rests with the company to decide which of its mines is to be closed, and to act accordingly.
(Text) :


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether he can assure the house that any of these three mines will be kept open? The minister says he cannot assure the house that three will be kept open. Can he assure the house that any of these three mines will be kept open?
(Translation):


Paul Comtois: Mr. Speaker, I think my reply was clear enough, and I note that the hon. member used his earphone to listen to the translation. Again I repeat-
(Text):
It is a matter for the company to decide. It is a managerial decision for the company.



PROVISION FOR CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF NARCOTICS

Hon. J. W. Monleiih (Minisler of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-100, to provide for the control of narcotic drugs.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Will the minister give an explanation?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, this bill relating to the control of narcotics is in part based upon a measure which was intended to implement substantially the recommendations of the special committee of the Senate which investigated the drug traffic in Canada in 1955. That bill, introduced in the Senate in 1957, was given first reading in this house before parliament was dissolved.
The present measure, which to a very great extent reflects the subject matter and content of that bill has, however, been substantially revised in the light of further experience. In addition to the provisions which relate to the legal distribution of drugs, the establishment of penalties and effective sanctions for illicit traffic in drugs, the measure also contains a new and most important feature involving the treatment of drug addiction. The Minister of Justice on January 24 last explained to this house the federal proposals in this regard which are now set forth in the measure before us for consideration.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of fhe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could inform the house when the report of the commission inquiring into the state of the automobile industry which was, I believe, submitted to the Prime Minister some weeks ago, will be tabled?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have never before heard such a reaction to a simple question. I can only say, "in due course".


Lester Bowles Pearson: What was the answer?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In due course.


Mr. Hellyer:: In the sweet bye and bye.
90205-6-352
Inquiries of the Ministry



AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position now to answer my question of Saturday last, when I asked if he would not reconsider his decision and that of the government not to see representatives of the united automobile workers who wish to make representations with respect to the agricultural implement industry.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, no further consideration has been given to that matter but I would feel that the representatives of the union in question might very profitably make their representations to the committee on agriculture, which I believe is dealing with the question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the fact that the united automobile workers and the steel workers wish to make such representations with regard to certain phases of this situation, will the government not consider meeting the representatives of the united automobile workers in order to hear the further representations they wish to make in respect of matters not now being covered by the inquiry of the parliamentary committee into the farm implement industry?


John George Diefenbaker: I really do not know what these further representations might be. The hon. member has not chosen to acquaint me with what they might be, although he apparently is aware of them. I am sure that the committee on agriculture will be only too willing to expand its field of inquiry in order to meet the needs of this very representative labour group.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only conclude, by way of a supplementary question, that the Prime Minister does not intend to see these workers.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask a supplementary question.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Essex East has not been very successful prophetically in the past two weeks.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the Prime Minister aware that the united automobile workers wished to present a brief that deals in part with the farm income picture, and that they were informed that the agriculture committee was not dealing with the farm income situation but rather with farm implements and therefore their brief would be out of order?

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS FOR SALE TO POLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and inquire if the minister is in a position to give the house any information about a report in the press this morning to the effect that a Polish-Canadian wheat agreement is under negotiation at the present time.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Assiniboia is slowly becoming aware that the government is endeavouring to sell some grain. All I can do at this time is confirm the newspaper story that negotiations are now in progress.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether the delegation is going to Winnipeg within the next few days?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that negotiations are in progress. If anything does develop the hon. member will be informed in due course. (Translation):
[Later: ]



INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE SALE TO SPAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address another question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is he aware of the news report published in La Presse yesterday, to the effect that Spain is at present going through a severe drought which is reported to threaten her crops? Could the Minister of Agriculture inform the house whether he is considering the possibility of selling grain to that country? (Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, during the past year the Canadian wheat board has sent 11 missions abroad covering some 37 or 38 countries. Every week I get a report on the market and the agricultural situation in each of the countries of the world, and on that basis we try to figure where our next export drive will be. We are certainly on the ball all the time in this regard.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister

of Agriculture based upon a Canadian Department of Agriculture release, undoubtedly prepared by the minister's new public information officer, which reads in part as follows:
Subject: Bovine t.b.
Ottawa, May 30, 1961-Canada's 38-year campaign against bovine tuberculosis will end Saturday when agriculture minister Alvin Hamilton, using a gold plated syringe, injects a black and white milk cow on a small farm in the Peace river district of Alberta.
My question, Mr. Speaker, is this. What is the cost of gold plating a syringe, and has the Minister of Agriculture consulted the Minister of Finance in connection with this gold plated syringe?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I know the whole country will be pleased and gratified that after nearly 40 years the long struggle of the scientists in the health of animals division of the Department of Agriculture has succeeded in virtually eliminating tuberculosis among Canadian cattle. To mark this very auspicious occasion I am being permitted to use a gold plated syringe to inoculate the last cow to receive injection. As I tenderly plunge the syringe into that cow I shall think of the hon. member for Essex East and reflect upon the fact that the cost of that syringe certainly would be less than the cost of a gold plated cow bell.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister give us the assurance that he will not shoot the bull?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows from his long experience, a politician never has to shoot the bull. It is already there.



THE CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) asked the following question:
Is it an offence for a person to refuse to answer certain of the questions contained in the census forms and, if so, what would be the penalty for such a refusal?
In answer I will quote to him section 35 of chapter 257 of the Statistics Act, which deals with offences and penalties connected with the taking of the census. It reads as follows:
35. Every person who, without lawful excuse,
(a) refuses or neglects to answer, or wilfully answers falsely, any question requisite for obtaining any information sought in respect of the objects of this act or any regulation, or pertinent

thereto, that has been asked of him by any person employed in the execution of any duty under this act or any regulation; or
(b) refuses or neglects to furnish any information or to fill in to the best of his knowledge and belief any schedule or form that he has been required to fill in, and to return the same when and as required of him under this act or any regulation, or wilfully gives false information or practises any other deception thereunder;
is, for every such refusal or neglect, or false answer or deception, guilty of an offence and is liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether he has anything to report on the dispute between the crown corporation Trans-Canada Air Lines and the Canadian air lines flight attendants association?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any report on what has transpired up to this moment except what I have read in the newspaper this morning.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Has the minister given any consideration to the question which was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Essex East concerning the action of the crown corporation, and as to whether it was in violation of section 4 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act?


Michael Starr: We have replied to the telegram which we received yesterday. We sent a telegram to Mr. Robert R. Smeal, business manager of the Canadian air lines flight attendants association at Vancouver acknowledging receipt of his telegram and informing him that I had asked T.C.A. for a statement of its position in the matter. I pointed out that he had not provided a copy of the instructions to which he objects and that the department was thus not in a position to comment, but that the prohibitions in section 4 of the industrial relations act appear to relate primarily to unfair labour practices directed against trade union membership or activity.
We also dispatched a telegram to Mr. G. E. Bolton, director of personnel for Trans-Canada Air Lines, informing him that we had received this telegram, which we quoted. We asked him whether he would let us have a copy of the instructions referred to together with a statement of the company's position in the matter. To date we have not received a reply.
90205-6-352J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister not agree that a copy of the instructions was sent to his colleague the Minister of Transport, and that they could easily be made available to the Minister of Labour? In view of the importance of this question, will he not advise the head of the employees association at once?


Michael Starr: I do not know how the hon. member for Essex East has this information-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am awake, that is why.


Michael Starr: We have not got these instructions, and I am informed by my colleague that he has not got them either, so the hon. gentleman is wrong again.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They were sent by Mr. Smeal.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance based on a statement reported by the Globe and Mail to have been made in Halifax last night by Mr. S. L. Buckwold, president of the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities, that the cost of borrowing money and mounting debts are causing municipal governments to shelve essential public works programs. Can the minister say whether the government proposes any action to correct this situation?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I have not seen the news article in question nor the statement attributed to this gentleman, but I think it is by now a matter of knowledge on the part of hon. members that the various chartered banks of the country are reducing the prime rate of interest on loans as of June 1 to 5i per cent. This will apply generally to bank loans with the exception of term loans and, I believe, loans to finance companies.
The government welcomes this decision on the part of the various chartered banks and expects that this reduction in the prime bank rate will have its effect on interest rates throughout the country.


John Richard Garland: While we are, of course, glad to see this reduction even though it is only one-quarter of one per cent, I wonder if the minister could say, in view of the reluctance of the Minister of Public Works to comment on this matter, when the N.H.A. interest rates may be reduced.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman has amused himself by his constant repetition of the same question at intervals, I think, of about every 48 hours throughout the entire session. He must be aware of the factors which govern interest rates in relation to loans under the National Housing Act. He has constantly mixed up interest rates of all kinds as if they were the same thing. Interest rates depend on the nature of the loan, the length of the loan and matters of that kind. I say the hon. member has been mixing these things up constantly in the questions he has asked.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he would comment on a report that Mr. J. T. Bryden has submitted his resignation as a member of the board of governors of the Bank of Canada and as a member of the executive committee of the board.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, yes; Mr. Bryden resigned from the executive committee of the board and from the board of the Bank of Canada a month or six weeks ago. He had taken on additional responsibilities in various fields, and on advice that he was carrying a very heavy load he asked that his resignation from the board of governors be accepted.
I may say that Mr. Bryden served a term of three years on the board of directors of the Bank of Canada, of which he has been an active member, and I wrote him at the time his resignation was tendered to express my regret and the regret of the government that he had felt it necessary to retire by reason of the very heavy burdens he was carrying. Last week he was elected president of the Canadian life insurance officers association.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not the only reason.


Lionel Chevrier: Were regrets expressed from the other side?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I heard a comment in an undertone from the Leader of the Opposition who said, I think, "That is not the reason". Mr. Speaker, if I correctly heard the hon. gentleman his statement is untrue. The statement I made gives the reason and the entire reason for his resignation.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a question of privilege. I am the one who interrupted the 
minister, and I said "Were regrets expressed from the other side in the same manner as the minister expressed them"?


An hon. Member:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I heard the hon. member for Laurier make his irrelevant comment and I also heard, I am quite certain, the comment by the Leader of the Opposition on which I have made, I think, a suitable observation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister if he will give the house an assurance that the reason he has indicated for this resignation is the only reason given?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, I do give that assurance, and I repel the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition which, I think, is unworthy of any hon. member.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the distinguished member for York North if he is now in a position to advise the house when the banking and commerce committee will meet to hear a report from the governor of the Bank of Canada?


Mr. C. A. Cathers (York Norlh):: As usual the hon. member for Essex East is out of order. Your Honour ruled this question out of order when he asked it in the first place and, as usual, the hon. member is out of order in asking me the same question today. I do not want to contribute to wasting the time of this house by being a party to this-


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the last time the question was asked the hon. member for York North took it as notice.


Cecil A. (Tiny) Cathers: In the first place, the hon. member for Essex East was out of order in asking that question. If Your Honour will check the question you will find there was no urgency about it, and no issue of national importance involved.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Half a million Canadians think it is important.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not aware that such a question has been ruled out of order. I know such questions have been asked of chairmen of committees as questions relating to the business of the house. I know they have been asked; whether or not it is in accordance with our practice I should not like to declare off the cuff. However, I am not prepared to say

that the question is out of order. Both hon. members might give some thought to it and I will deal with it if the question is asked again.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I direct a supplementary question to the distinguished member for York North, chairman of the banking and commerce committee. In view of the fact that he is obviously not in a position now to reply to my question, will he consult with the Minister of Finance and give me an answer tomorrow?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Yesterday the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo asked for information regarding the reported sighting of a submarine off the coast of Newfoundland.
The R.C.M.P. did receive information from a local fisherman in the Burgeo area that he had sighted a submarine south of Burgeo at 9.30 a.m. local time on May 24. The Royal Canadian Navy was notified and started an investigation of the report. It might be added that such reports are frequently received. We are very glad to get them, and steps are taken in each case to verify the accuracy of the information given. In nearly all cases the reported sightings are outside the territorial waters of Canada.
I should like to refer the hon. member to a similar question and the answer given by my predecessor on June 18, 1959, as reported at page 4863 of Hansard of that date. The effect of that answer is that it is not considered to be in the public interest to give any verification as to whether there actually was a submarine, or what kind it was, and so on.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I apologize for giving him such short notice.
My question arises from a press dispatch to the effect that the United States Senate internal security subcommittee has been investigating the series of international scientific conferences which Mr. Cyrus Eaton has held at his home in Pugwash, Nova Scotia, over the years, and has published a report condemning them as undermining United
Inquiries of the Ministry States security. I wonder whether the minister would care to comment on the propriety of a foreign government investigating meetings of distinguished Canadian and international scientists which have taken place on Canadian soil.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the minister answers the question I should indicate that I question its propriety. It seems to me to relate to a matter which is not an administrative responsibility of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


LAOS-REPORTED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CO-CHAIRMEN OF GENEVA CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs care to comment on the differences that have appeared to develop between the co-chairmen of the conference at Geneva in respect of the operation of the cease fire in Laos and the work of the international commission there?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, difficulties have arisen at the Geneva conference on Laos over questions related to the effectiveness of the cease fire in that country.
The position of the Canadian government in this matter is clear. We are doing our utmost to ensure that the commission has both the authority and the means to carry out its task of supervision and control. We are in favour of the commission investigating any serious violation or threat of violation of the cease fire.
To do this the commission must have two things. First, it must have the co-operation of the parties in Laos. Recent reports indicate agreement by the parties there to the establishment of a joint military committee to work with the international commission. We hope this will help to remove some of the difficulties which have existed so far. Second, the commission must have helicopters, airplanes and other physical facilities. It reported its logistical requirements to the co-chairmen on May 22. We hope that the earliest possible agreement will be reached among the governments principally concerned on supplying at least the most urgent of these requirements.
I might add that newspaper speculation that the Geneva conference is on the verge of collapse is in my view not warranted by any major change in the situation either in Laos or at Geneva. There has been some difference of opinion as to what topic would be discussed next, and I understand that the meeting called for yesterday did not take
5574	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry place. It may be that there will be an adjournment until after President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev have met at the end of this week, but there is no suggestion that the conference will break up. As a matter of fact, I hope to be back there myself late next week.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Has the Canadian government made any offer of air transportation, including helicopters, for the use of this commission of which Canada is a member?


Howard Charles Green: At the present time the position is that owing to our initiative at the conference the co-chairmen sent a wire to the chairman of the international commission asking him to outline the requirements in the way of equipment that were needed by the commission. The reply to that wire was received a few days ago, but the co-chairmen have not yet acted on the wire. We are making representations in the meantime, and Canada will certainly be prepared to do her part. We think it is essential that the commission should have adequate equipment.


CUBA-REPORTED OFFER OF CANADA TO ACT AS REFEREE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Creslohl (Cartier):: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister inform the house whether the government has recently offered its good offices as a mediator with regard to some of the problems existing between Cuba and the United States?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering where the hon. member has been for the last two or three weeks.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. M. Creaghan (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a further question to the Minister of Transport concerning C.N.R. employment in the Moncton shops. Notwithstanding my question of May 25 and the minister's reply of May 26 concerning the curtailment of repairs to heavy passenger car equipment at Moncton, I am now advised that 14 employees have already received layoff notices effective Friday, June 2. As a result of this unpopular management decision I have received telegrams of protest from the mayors of Moncton and Shediac and, without any exaggeration, hundreds of messages from C.N.R. employees.


Tomorrow seven union officials from the Moncton area will be visiting Ottawa to meet members of parliament to protest these layoffs, which have created great public resentment in New Brunswick. In view of this proposed visit tomorrow, I wonder whether the minister could now instruct the Canadian National Railways management to postpone these lay-offs in order that the directors of the company, and other individuals interested in the matter, might review this policy decision.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member raised this question on May 25 I immediately contacted the management of the Canadian National Railways and was supplied with a very complete answer in respect of the circumstances. I read that answer in the house on May 26. I can assure the hon. member, however, that management, before taking such a decision, of course investigates all the avenues and possibilities of keeping these jobs open for the employees.
As the hon. member and other hon. members of this house know, this is a matter for management, and not a matter for the Minister of Transport in respect of which he instructs management. I will certainly bring these new representations to the attention of management. However, in the meantime I should remind the hon. gentleman that a committee of employees is meeting with the management of the C.N.R. to discuss the present situation, in an attempt to find some way of alleviating the very unfortunate effect of these lay-offs.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister, in view of matters such as this, when the C.N.R. management is going to appear before the House of Commons sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member should raise that matter with the committee.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the committee has not met as yet. I understand the minister has given several undertakings to announce when the C.N.R. management will be available, and he is the liaison which exists between the management of the C.N.R. and the committee, not the committee itself.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, it is up to the
committee to decide when it is going to hold its meetings.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Middlesex West.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member defer his supplementary question? The hon. member for Middlesex West has been trying to ask a question for some time.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport. Has it not been the practice in the past for the minister to give some indication to the house in respect of when this committee is likely to meet?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Absolutely.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, this is strictly a matter for committee decision. The Minister of Transport acts as liaison with the presidents of Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines. I can assure hon. members that as soon as that committee meets, both presidents will be available.


Lionel Chevrier: Could the minister find out from the presidents when they will be available, and indicate to the house when the committee is likely to meet?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that farmers in southwestern Ontario are now planting both corn and soybeans, and in some cases it may be necessary for them to reach a decision as to which they should plant, could the minister expedite as much as possible the announcement of government policy concerning a support price for soybeans in respect of the 1961 crop?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I asked that question two weeks ago.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that I asked that question two weeks ago, could the minister now indicate when there will be a reply, and also tell us when the government will be in a position to fix a price in respect of Ontario grown wheat?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Time is going by.
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



WHEAT BOARD PRICES FOR FUTURE DELIVERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I regret not to have given him notice of it. However, if he cannot answer it today, he may do so later.
Since May 23, 1961, the Canadian wheat board has been refusing to sell oats to be delivered in July. It offers some to be delivered in October only, at 80J cents a bushel, as against an initial price of 60 cents.
Since there are 15 million bushels of oats in the Fort William and rural elevators, in addition to 50 million in the hands of western farmers, why does the Canadian wheat board not authorize delivery of part of that oats in July?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seems to have several questions all of which might properly go on the order paper, although if there has been a recent change of policy perhaps the minister would like to reply.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is frequently having to combat rumours from various sources about the actions of the Canadian wheat board. Usually these rumours are based on the hopes and wishes of people who are not friends of the producers of western Canada. I will be glad to take the hon. member's question as notice, get the facts and put him straight again. (Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I must inform the minister that we sympathize with western farmers and, if we ask this question, it is in order to allow-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order-
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: -western farmers to sell- (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: -in eastern Canada, because at present we are unable to get supplies, whereas western farmers have too much grain-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seems anxious for a debate rather than information.
557$	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry



PULPWOOD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question, notice of which I have sent him. It relates to the very recent action under the federal agricultural marketing act giving the right to Quebec forest products marketing co-operatives to regulate interprovincial and extraterritorial trade in pulpwood. I should like to ask the minister what relationship these new powers of the co-operatives given by his department have to any policy of improving the price to producers of farm cut pulpwood in eastern Canada.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in the past two or three years a number of producer marketing boards have been established in the province of Quebec under the Quebec agricultural marketing act with respect to the marketing of pulpwood. In so far as the province of Ontario is concerned, I understand that pulpwood is not included as an agricultural product in its farm products marketing act.
The authority granted by the federal government under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act in the three orders in council referred to in the question which the hon. member sent me are among a total of 12 such orders provided to allow provincial marketing boards in the province of Quebec to regulate and control the marketing of pulpwood in interprovincial and export trade in a manner similar to the control they have within the province. As with other provincial marketing boards throughout Canada, it is expected that such extension of powers in interprovincial and export trade will enable these boards to exercise better control of their commodity in the general interests of the producers.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could I ask the minister whether this trend has any relationship to the original idea of providing a floor price for pulpwood, that was advanced some time ago by certain members of the government?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: One of the ways in which producers can increase their income is by organizing themselves into producer boards on a democratic basis. This gives them the right to ask the provincial government and, so far as interprovincial trade is concerned, the federal government to give them the power to set their prices, and in this way they would in effect set their own floors.


(Translation):



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rodrigue Bourdages (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Could the minister indicate to the house whether the English language is imposed as the official language of communication between employees of his department at the Delorimier street office in Montreal, and whether instructions to that effect have been issued by the new head of that office, Mr. G. R. Aubut, as reported in a story published in La Presse on May 25?
(Text):


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I did read the article, and can say there is no foundation at all to the report that Mr. Aubut, a distinguished French Canadian, now head of the Montreal office of the Department of Public Works, is converting that office to the use of the English language. Such a suggestion is preposterous. In fact there is no change at all in the policies and practices now being followed from those policies that were followed when the former officers in charge of that office, Mr. Grenier and Mr. Gagnon, were there.
In this respect the department follows a very strict policy of providing French answers to letters received in French. There is no difficulty involved in this regard, Mr. Speaker, when one considers that of the 74 employees in the Montreal office, 70 are French Canadian, and very good employees. There is no ban nor even any restrictions on communications in French within the office, written, oral or otherwise. French is often used by headquarters officials in communications to the district, and a number of the senior officers of the department at headquarters in Ottawa are in fact French speaking. These include the departmental secretary, the chief engineer, harbours and rivers branch, and the executive assistant to the deputy minister, as well as my own parliamentary secretary.
The report concerning a lecture by an English speaking official of the dominion fire commissioners' branch was correct in some respects, but sufficiently incomplete as to give an entirely wrong impression. A specialist on fire prevention in government buildings did go to Montreal to speak to representatives of all government departments there, including the fire wardens of all government buildings in the area. The office of the dominion fire commissioner does not have a large staff, but its French speaking personnel includes an engineer who is completely bilingual. Unfortunately he was not available

for this mission. Furthermore, the official who was sent was a specialist in this particular aspect of fire prevention. Before the lecture started the group were asked if they wanted the talk translated as it went along, and there was a unanimous response that they were satisfied to have the talk in English.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It sounds like the speech the minister made in Brockville.


David James Walker: I mentioned the words
"pompous Paul" when I was in Brockville, and I should like to mention them again.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is why you
lost the election.


David James Walker: They were then told that if there was any point they did not understand they should raise their hands and a translation would be provided. I understand that at the end of the talk the meeting was unanimous in the feeling that the subject matter had been helpful and the lecture had been fully understood.


Mr. Denis:: Is the minister aware that the Mr. Aubut is really Mr. Allbut? He does not want to be called Allbut at all; it is Aubut, and he does not speak French.


David James Walker: In reply to that I can say that the hon. member for St. Denis should be called "all but."
(Translation):

On the orders of the day:


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order at this stage, after vainly trying to do so immediately after the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) completed his remarks.
I must inform the house that Mr. Aubut, the present director of federal buildings in Montreal, is a personal friend of mine, a resident of my constituency, and I would point out that he is perfectly bilingual.
(Text):



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister give any report to the house on conditions in Angola? Has he any comment to make on the deteriorated situation in that country? Can the minister make some comment on the very large number of refugees who are
Inquiries of the Ministry leaving Angola for the Congo, and has Canada made any offer of food to prevent starvation there?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister can say whether he regards this matter as his responsibility. The hon. member for Assiniboia seems to be roaming around the world in territory which is not under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, first we have a Secretary of State for External Affairs. Then, Canada has a policy with regard to the very serious situations now existing in various parts of the world, and it is very much in order to ask the minister to comment on the serious situations in parts of the world which are a threat to world peace. No one has suggested that the minister for external affairs himself can remove those situations, but Canada has a policy and the minister has always been most co-operative in answering such questions.


Mr. Speaker:: I leave it to the minister. As far as I am concerned the question is not one of the administrative responsibility of our Department of External Affairs. It would be in order to ask whether a policy had been developed and whether the government was implementing a policy with respect to some matter beyond the jurisdiction of our own government, but I think it would open the door to questions which were quite irrelevant to ask for opinions on questions which are not matters of administrative responsibility.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, if that ruling were rigidly enforced there would be no questions asked about external affairs. However, I should like to rephrase my question. Have any representations been made to the Canadian government about the refugee problem in the Congo? Has any request or any offer been made with respect to the provision of food to prevent starvation?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we are of course greatly concerned over the situation in Angola. Yesterday I received a delegation including representatives of the department of overseas missions of the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Baptist foreign mission board, and the executive of the general council and the board of overseas missions of the United Church of Canada.
They wished to inform me of their concern about the present situation in Angola, and I should like to say how deeply impressed I was by their presentation and by their dedication to the work which Canadian missionaries have carried on for about 80 years,

Criminal Code
and their distress at the violence in the territory. I informed them that Canada supported the recent resolution adopted by the general assembly which set up a committee to inquire into the situation in Angola because we considered that the resolution of-ferred a moderate and helpful approach to a complicated subject. I also told them I hoped that the committee would be able to make recommendations which would ease the situation.
The members of this committee have been named within the last few days. They are Finland, Dahomey, Sudan, Bolivia and Malaya. I informed the missionaries that we deeply sympathized with their concern over the future of Africans in Angola, and that we were as concerned about the observance of human rights and dignities in Angola as in other parts of the world. I also informed them of our willingness to consider ways in which we might usefully give help and advice in the interests and general welfare of the people of Angola.
We have had no request to help refugees as yet.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Johnson (Chambly-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of National Revenue, but in his absence I should like to direct it to the acting minister.
(Translation):
Would the minister inform the house whether there is ground to the rumour that after he had resigned, Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon, formerly city editor at the newspaper La Presse, in Montreal, was offered a job with the C.B.C.?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the hon. member put his question on the order paper in the absence of the minister.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 29, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-92, to amend the Criminal Code (capital murder) -Mr. Fulton-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 2-Punishment for capital murder.
Mr. Deschatelets:: I understood the minister was preparing an amendment to clause 1. I wonder if he is ready to put his amendment now.


Mr. Fulton:: Not at this precise moment. I thought perhaps we could carry on with one or two of the other clauses and then, at a convenient moment, revert to clause 1. I will have the amendment here shortly.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: On clause 2, Mr. Chairman, I must say that even if I voted against the principle of the bill on second reading, I am very receptive to any reasonable reform.
My mind is not set for or against the abolition of capital punishment. I am in favour of realistic reforms of the penal law concerning the death penalty and I sincerely believe that Bill C-92 is a mere compromise which after all, will lead to results which I do not want.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the greatest threat to our society comes first from organized crime. It is, therefore, against that threat that we must not show any weakness. We must see to it that we are efficiently protected against it through this bill.
In the course of my remarks when the bill was introduced, I said that we should break new grounds and liken the case of women to that of a young man under 18. Indeed if this bill provides that any young man under 18 must be exempted from capital murder, and consequently exempted from the death penalty, I fail to see why we should not, following the same line, do the same in the case of women.
I wish to state here very briefly that we cannot liken the case of women to that of the adult male as far as the death penalty is concerned.
Here is the basis of my argument. I have here the report of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, and I wish to refer you, Mr. Chairman, to section 1,008:
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I raise a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I understand the hon. member is now suggesting the bill should provide that women would not be liable to capital punishment. It seems to me this is not relevant to the clause under discussion. I do not know whether it would have been possible, but I do suggest that the only time it might have been possible to make such a suggestion would have been on second reading, when the bill as a whole was being discussed. I am not saying the subject would have been relevant then and it might have been a matter requiring a ruling, but it seems to me the only time this kind of a suggestion might be in order would be during the debate on second reading.
We have concluded the general discussion which is allowed on clause 1 and we are now dealing with the clauses of the bill, at which

Criminal Code
time discussion must be strictly relevant to the clause itself. I suggest, therefore, that my hon. friend has not chosen the right time and is not in order in introducing this subject at this stage. I do suggest that, having completed the debate on second reading and the normally wide ranging discussion on the first clause, we should now confine ourselves to a discussion of the clauses of the bill; otherwise any hon. member would be free to introduce any idea he might have with regard to this subject generally. The time for that type of debate is over. I think, in the interests of preserving order, I should make this submission that it is not in order to discuss the question of exempting women from capital punishment.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: With all due respect to the minister I feel that the position he is taking now is ridiculous. The minister is suggesting that I should have introduced this amendment on second reading. He should know quite well that we were discussing the principle of the bill at that stage, and we are now dealing with clause 2. Clause 2 provides an exception to the general rule in so far as a minor of 18 or under is concerned.
I have an amendment ready, and I am going to lay the foundation for my amendment. I am going to send you a copy of my amendment, Mr. Chairman, as well as the minister. I shall be ready in due time to meet the arguments of the minister. I suggest I am quite in order in presenting a case for the exemption of women from capital punishment at a time when an exemption is already provided in clause 2. I shall be very brief. (Translation):
I was about to read this:
When a death sentence Is pronounced against a woman, she may ask that her execution be delayed on the ground that she is with child.
This simple fact shows that the case of a woman is obviously not the same as that of a man, and that, with regard to capital punishment, we should approach the situation from different angles.
On Thursday, March 4, 1954, during an investigation by the joint committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on capital punishment, the following questions were asked:
According to you, would it be appropriate to impose the death penalty for women?
Have you any general remarks to make with regard to imposing capital punishment for juveniles and women?
That shows that the issue existed at the time of the investigation, and that it was a matter for concern to committee members who gave the question very special consideration.
This is what the then minister of justice, Hon. Mr. Garson, had to say on the subject during the sitting of May 11, 1954:


Hon.   Mr. Garson@: Well, the question of the commutation of the death penalty imposed upon a woman is one which we judge, I think it is fair to say, with more leniency that we would in the case of a man. I think it is also correct to say that in most cases the moral culpability of the crime of murder as committed by a woman as a rule is less than that of a man, speaking generally.
Now, Mr. Chairman, for the last decade or so, there have been, as far as the province of Quebec is concerned, only two cases of women being executed, and in each of these cases, if I remember well, those women were only accessory to the crime, and not the main perpetrators.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that we should be realistic. Woman does not constitute the prime menace, and in her case I do not see why imprisonment for life, which is the sentence for non-capital murder, should not be provided as for a young man of under 18.
I said earlier that I proposed to submit an amendment to that section. I trust I will have the support of the hon. member for Scarborough (Mr. McGee).
Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I move that subsection 3 of section 2 of Bill No. C-92 be amended by adding, at line 9, after the words:
3. Notwithstanding subsection (1),-
The following words:
A female person or-
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, you have permitted discussion on the matter so, notwithstanding the fact that in my view it is out of order, perhaps it would be quicker to dispose of the matter on its merits than to press the point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In that connection may I say this, and I shall be quite brief. We considered this matter carefully and were unable to accept the suggestion that has been made from time to time that there should be a provision that women be not liable to capital punishment. In this connection I would point out that it seems to me that when you are making the basic distinction between capital murder and non-capital murder on the basis of the element of deliberation, if such a crime were committed by a woman the capital penalty should be exigible against her just as it is in the case of the same crime committed by a man. Furthermore, the joint parliamentary committee that considered this matter also studied it very carefully and one of their recommendations, as found at page 23 of their report is this: No special provision for women.

Criminal Code
I know we have not accepted all the recommendations of the committee, so 1 am not saying that one is absolutely conclusive of any argument by any means. I am merely pointing out that our view in this case was shared by the parliamentary committee or that, if you like to put it in that way, in this case we share the view of the parliamentary committee that considered this whole matter for two years. I therefore am unable to accede to my hon. friend's suggestion with regard to this amendment.


The Chairman:: I understand that the minister does not object to the amendment being put. If there is no objection I will put the amendment.


Hazen Robert Argue: After you have put the amendment you will then hear some representations?


Jacques Flynn: Yes. Shall the amendment carry?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I just want to say that we shall support the amendment. Even though it may seem unnecessarily to favour one group, it is in the direction of total abolition which we support.


Mr. Drysdale:: It is contrary to socialism.


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Jacques Flynn: All those in favour of the amendment will please rise. All those opposed to the amendment will please rise.
And the Clerk Assistant proceeding to announce the result of the vote:
Mr. Pallet!: Before the vote is recorded, Mr. Chairman, may I raise this point of order. There was an hon. member sitting in his place here today when the vote was called and he has not indicated whether he votes for or against the amendment. I think there is no provision for abstention from voting. I believe there is an obligation on the hon. member to indicate his vote.


An hon. Member:: Who is the member?
Mr. Pallet!: I would appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Essex East would indicate his vote.


Hazen Robert Argue: Before you deal with the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. I also noticed that the hon. member for Essex East did not vote. I thought a man with such strong convictions and opinions on every subject would vote. Speaking on the point of order, may I say that I think it is his right, although I doubt the wisdom of it, to remain in his seat if he so wishes, and that he is not required to vote.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, since I have been so forcefully identified from right and left-


Hazen Robert Argue: Left and right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -may I say to the
hon. member for Assiniboia that when it comes to following the course of wisdom, I am sure he will not misunderstand me if I say that I will not follow him in that regard.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is a reflection on your members who voted.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I point out that I think it is highly improper for any hon. member to comment upon what another hon. member has done with regard to a vote in this chamber. I have not voted because this matter has come up suddenly and I have not been able to give it the kind of thought which I am sure this question deserves. I doubt very much whether the whip of the Conservative party has given this matter any thought at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. The hon. member's reasons may be adequate to himself, although I doubt whether they will appeal very strongly to other members of the committee. However, now that the point has been raised it seems that we should be clear on the matter. I am under the impression that our rules provide that a member who is present in the chamber must indicate which way he votes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the authority for that statement? I should be glad to know it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I say I am under that impression. Since I think it is an important matter that we should decide, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you indicate what the situation is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think it would be a good point to have cleared up. It is the first time I have ever known that point to be raised.


Jacques Flynn: I was always under the impression that an hon. member could abstain from voting even though he was in the chamber.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is right.


Jacques Flynn: I may say that if such is the case, of course, any identification on a point of order of a member who abstains should not have taken place. If the committee will allow me to consider the point further I should like to do so. If I have anything to add to what I have already said, I will do so later.


Hazen Robert Argue: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would simply add one point, Mr. Chairman. I did not indicate whether or not I was paired.
And the result of the vote having been announced:
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 8; nays, 53.


Jacques Flynn: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 2 carry?


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I have a few remarks to make on this clause particularly with relation to subsection 3 of section 206 of the Criminal Code, which excludes a young person from liability to the penalty for capital murder when such person appears to be under the age of 18 at the time he committed the murder. If we turn to chapter 160 of the revised statutes of 1952, an act respecting juvenile delinquents, we find in section 2(1) (a) a definition of the term "child". The definition reads:
"child" means any boy or girl apparently or actually under the age of sixteen years, or such other age as may be directed in any province pursuant to subsection 2;
If we turn now to subsection 2 we read:
The governor in council may from time to time by proclamation
(a) direct that in any province the expression "child" in this act means any boy or girl apparently or actually under the age of eighteen years, and any such proclamation may apply either to boys only or to girls only or to both boys and girls, and (b) revoke any direction made with respect to any province by a proclamation under this section, and thereupon the expression "child" in this act in that province means any boy or girl apparently or actually under the age of sixteen years.
I wonder why we should have a provision in this bill dealing with the Criminal Code stating that the penalty for capital murder shall not be applicable to a child who appears to be under the age of 18 years, when we have on the statute books the Juvenile Delinquents Act according to which a child is defined as a person under the age of 16 years. Should we not apply the same standard to this section 206 of the Criminal Code dealing with capital murder?
Since I indicated on second reading last Wednesday that I am of the opinion that any person 18 years or over is old enough to take responsibility for committing a capital murder and old enough to be liable for the punishment set for capital murder, I draw the attention of the minister to the possibility of amending this clause of the bill now under consideration so as to amend subsection 3 of section 206, which is clause 2 of Bill No. C-92. Accordingly I move, seconded by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere:
That clause 2 be amended by substituting the world "sixteen" for the word "eighteen" in paragraph (3) of section 206.
Criminal Code


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was just about to ask the hon. member whose amendment has been put forward if he can tell us what his research has revealed in this regard as to the practice in jurisdictions outside Canada.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Perhaps we could rely on the experience of the hon. member for Essex East for having that information given to the committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the hon. member say whether there are any other jurisdictions of which he is aware where young persons of 16 are subject to the death penalty? I am just looking for some information on the subject.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I am sorry, but I cannot give to hon. gentlemen that information. I am really serious when I say I rely on the hon. member for Essex East to give this information. I only know that in our country we have this problem of juvenile delinquency. It may be that we should take it more seriously and say that our young people should be discouraged from taking part in the gang wars and fights of which we hear so much in the big cities of Canada, in Toronto, Winnipeg, Montreal and even here in Ottawa. My proposed amendment arises from the fact that in most provinces of Canada our young people after they reach the age of 16 are very often independent of their parents. Many of them leave home to work in the cities and separate themselves from the authority of their parents. It may be that we should consider the advisability of amending the act in such a way as to reduce the age limit from 18 to 16.
Moreover, if the hon. member had listened carefully he would remember that I quoted chapter 160 of the revised statutes dealing with juvenile delinquents and tried to establish that since that act defines a child as a person under the age of 16, we should apply the same standard all the way through in the Criminal Code except in matters other than in capital crimes where a province has decided to take advantage of section 2, subsection (2) (a) to increase the age from 16 to 18.
Let us not forget, however, that subsection (2) (b) of the same act gives power to the federal government to revoke any such proclamation. My contention is that taking into account that we have extensive juvenile delinquency in this country, we should consider reducing the age from 18 years to 16 years under clause 2 of the bill now being considered.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I should say a word at this point, because the question as to what is done in other jurisdictions is of interest

Criminal Code
and the answer might be helpful to the committee. The Gowers commission points out in paragraph 183 that with respect to the United Kingdom the children's act of 1908 provided that persons under 16 years of age at the time of the offence could not be sentenced to death but, instead, could be sentenced to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure. This provision was extended by the children and young person's act of 1933 and by the children and young person's (Scotland) act of 1937 to persons under 18 at the time of conviction. It was further extended by section 16 of the criminal justice act, 1948 and section 17 of the criminal justice (Scotland) act, 1949, to persons under 18 at the time the offence was committed. No person under 18 years of age had in fact been executed since 1887. So the law of England since 1933 has been that no one under the age of 18, generally speaking, should be hanged.
It seems to me, with respect to the argument of the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville, that there is some difficulty. He is basing his case on the fact that in our Juvenile Delinquents Act the age limit is stated to be 16, and I believe that is subject to variation from province to province. Assuming that it is age 16, for the purposes of his argument, it seems to me there is a very great difference between saying, on the one hand, that for the purposes of that act a person under the age 16 shall be regarded as a juvenile and shall be treated in special courts, and saying on the other hand that a person over 16 and under 18 years of age, therefore, should be subject to be hanged. One argument does not seem to follow from the other at all.
I should again like to refer to the findings of the joint parliamentary committee here in Canada, and perhaps I should read the whole paragraph from their report in this regard. The paragraph in question is No. 76, found at page 18 of that report, and reads as follows:
76. The committee noticed that the invariable practice has been to commute the sentence of all persons under 18 and that, since 1945, the sentence has rarely been executed against a person 20 years and under. The committee balanced the consideration, that youth must always be a mitigating factor, against the fact that some of the most callous crimes are committed by young offenders showing a total disrespect for life or property. The committee noted that the United Kingdom royal commission on capital punishment unanimously favoured the retention of the present United Kingdom law prohibiting the execution of offenders under 18 but was almost equally divided in considering whether the exemption should be raised to 21. The committee concluded that it would be proper to amend the law to provide that the death penalty should not apply to a person of the age of 18 years or less at the time of the commission of the offence and recommends strongly that, except in extraordinary cases, the present practice of commuting most death sentences passed on persons under 21 years be continued.

This is another case where we have accepted the committee's recommendation, in so far as the provision of the law is concerned, with regard to persons of less than 18 years of age, and it constitutes a recommendation for the guidance of the executive. That viewpoint of the committee is carried into their conclusions or summary of recommendations, and is recommendation No. 6 at page 23.
I recognize that we have to fix an age limit, and that there is bound to be some difficulty because there is a great differentiation made on the basis of perhaps one or two days in a person's life. The limit has to be fixed somewhere, and for the reasons indicated in the passage I have read from the committee's report it seemed appropriate to us that it should be at age 18.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I should-


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I just say, in order that the committee will not be taken by surprise, that as the house leader announced last evening, I am unable to be here this afternoon, so at 2.30 the house will continue its discussions in respect of the bill of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question in that connection. Is it a fact that we are not only going to adjourn at 2.30, but that the minister is going to be away for some time? I have heard that he is going to be away for some two weeks.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, no, I shall not be away for two weeks. I do not think I shall be able to be back for the balance of this week, but I certainly shall be back next week.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That being the case, I should like to point out that it is regrettable that the government cannot even now accept the proposal that while the minister is away, with the Solicitor General guiding the bill we would go into committee in order to meet the requests and objectives stated by us yesterday.
(Translation):


Mr.. Denis:: Mr. Chairman, I believe we should endorse the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson), for it brings us closer to the existing law.
(Text):
For the benefit of the members of this committee I should like to cite section 13 of the Criminal Code, which reads as follows:
13. No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was seven years of age or more, but under the age of fourteen years, unless he was competent to know the nature and consequences of his conduct and to appreciate that it was wrong.

I think the best thing would have been to leave the law as it is, because we are now involved in a situation where there are three or four age categories in respect of which an individual can be found guilty of murder and liable to capital punishment. I support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville, because it is closer to the existing criminal law regarding the age 14 limit.
(Translation):


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to endorse the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson).
As he mentioned himself, we are faced today, especially in this country, with a juvenile crime wave and as a result, unfortunately, too many crimes are being committed by teenagers under the age of 18.
The hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) referred to section 13 of the Criminal Code. Allow me to point out the special provisions contained in section 139 of the Criminal Code, where a distinction is also made between a crime committed by a person under 14 and one over 14 years of age.
With regard to rape, before the last amendments were made to the Criminal Code, the crime of rape was punishable by death, under the law, regardless of the age of the persons who committed the crime.
If this amendment receives the approval of the house, then we may have contributed to creating more of an impression on youth who, nowadays, laugh off all forms of authority, be it executive or paternal.
If the legislator deemed appropriate, for certain crimes, to let the child of 14 years bear the consequences of the act he has committed, I am of the opinion that in every other field, and especially in the case of murder, the young man of 16 years old should be treated on an equal basis with adults.
For that reason* I readily endorse the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville.
(Text):


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I cannot see any reason for following acceptance of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville. I rather appreciated the sequitur which the minister presented regarding the inconsistencies between the age limit of the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the proposed age limit of 18. That is a very logical approach to the situation. By setting up different age groups in respect of which crimes can be recognized, such as seven years, 14 years, 16 years, and now 18 years, we are
Criminal Code
compounding a great number of difficulties which the different age limitations have created.
As a result, I am wondering how we will deal with the question of the maturity of persons in Canada, when individuals are not considered to be mature for the purpose of voting until the age of 21 years. I suggest that if there is to be a change in respect of the age when a person can be put to death, individuals should be given the full run of their immaturity, so to speak, until they reach the age of 21 years.
Actually we are confusing two things. We are confusing the possibility of finding a person guilty of murder up to a certain age with the advisability of putting that person to death. It is possible to find a person below the age of 16 guilty of murder, but the minister is now asking that he should not be put to death if he is under the age of 18. Therefore I would not support the amendment as it is presented, but on the other hand I would certainly support an amendment to raise the age to 21, to give the Canadian his full run of immaturity until the time he is permitted to vote.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: May I draw the committee's attention to what took place in England before the Gowers commission. Paragraph 189 of the report reads:
The statutory exemption of persons under 18 from the capital sentence gave effect to a principle which had governed for over 40 years the practice of ministers responsible for advising on the use of the prerogative of mercy. From 1887 onwards, successive ministers recognized that the penalty of death ought not to be inflicted on persons under the age of 18, and recommended a reprieve in all such cases. The principle that a person under the age of 18 should not be put to death, however bad his crime may be, has long been accepted without question.
In the face of the experience in the United Kingdom and in Canada I think the clause should stand.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, do we not feel that we are giving enough of a chance to these poor people, as we say, who have committed murder? Yesterday, the Prime Minister was saying that, as far as a second offence is concerned, the percentage among criminals having committed murder is less than among other groups of criminals.
That seems normal, because those who have committed homicide are either hanged, which makes for a lower percentage of second offences or they have been imprisoned for life and this again helps to reduce the percentage. The third major group is the one consisting of those who have committed manslaughter; in most cases a car accident is involved and it cannot be said that they are criminals.

Criminal Code
These people, once back to normal life, are not ready to commit new crimes, since they are good people to whom an accident has happened.
As for those who were fortunate enough to be granted mercy and were later released on parole, well they had been sentenced to life imprisonment. If they relapse into crime, they are in for another period of 25 years.
The compassion for those poor murderers expressed by the Prime Minister proceeded from a rather weak argument, I think.
A person of 14 years of age cannot be sentenced to death under the present law. The bill has increased this age level to 18 years. That is why I support the amendment submitted by the member for Chambly-Rou-ville (Mr. Johnson). It keeps closer to the present law, notwithstanding the fact that the bill under discussion gives so many chances to the murderer that it becomes practically impossible to apply the death sentence.
First of all, there is the difference established between capital and non-capital murder.
Yesterday, several examples were given of cases where murderers could not be sentenced to hanging.
Moreover, section 13 of the bill provides that the judge must ask the jury whether or not they recommend mercy for the accused. Under section 14, the judge can also recommend mercy. Section 11 gives the accused an automatic right of appeal the moment the death sentence is passed. Moreover, if he has not been successful before the appeal court, he may, under section 12, bring his case before the supreme court. Finally, if he does not succeed before the supreme court either, there is still the royal prerogative. You know the extent to which that perogative has been used during the past three years; if I am not mistaken, 39 death sentences out of 49 have been commuted to life imprisonment.
I therefore submit, Mr. Chairman, that the murderer has enough chances of avoiding the gallows without our having to set an age limit under which no man may be sentenced to death.
If the government want to abolish capital punishment, why do they not go ahead and say so instead of making a fuss and telling the people in one breath that capital punishment will be abolished and then, in another, that it will not be abolished; that they are in favour of protecting the murderer or that the latter does not have enough protection.
Never have I seen such a misleading and foggy bill aiming to please both currents of opinion. That is why I respectfully submit

that we should support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson).
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment negatived; Yeas, 5; nays, 41.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Capital murder to be specifically charged.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Jacques Flynn: Do I understand that the minister is asking that the committee rise and report progress at this time?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 22, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-77, to provide for the rehabilitation of agricultural lands and the development of rural areas in Canada-Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle)-Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 3-Agreements for rural development projects authorized.
(Translation):
Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks in connection with section 3 of this bill. The section reads as follows:
The minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, enter into an agreement with any province providing for
(a)	the undertaking jointly with the government of the province or any agency thereof of projects for the development of income and employment opportunities in rural agricultural areas specified in the agreement and for improving standards of living in those areas; or
(b)	the payment to the province of contributions in respect of the cost of such projects undertaken by the government of the province or any agency thereof.
Mr. Chairman, we are indeed justified in discussing legislation to increase farm income, because the booklet published by the department, entitled "ARDA", reports that out of 575,000 farms operating throughout the country, 120,242 yield only $1,200 or less

to their operators. Further, analysis shows that, in 91,368 farms in eastern Canada the sale of farm products brings in only $1,200 or less. In other words, 76 per cent of all farms in eastern Canada show a cash return of less than $1,200 to their operators.
Those figures prove what I have said previously to the effect that in the maritime provinces two farmers out of every three do not have enough income to support their family decently. That is why we, in the opposition, have felt it desirable to speak up on behalf of eastern farmers.
Frequently, the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) comes back with the charge that we want to pit the eastern farmer against the western farmer. I am not laying the whole blame on the minister for the deplorable situation in which the eastern farmers find themselves, because he is not yet fully conversant with the problems of his department.
It is hard to bring back to earth a man who has been living in the clouds ever since he left his lecturing job at the University of Saskatchewan. However, his irresponsibility would soon be forgiven if we could find among his colleagues in the government, and particularly those from eastern Canada, men with backbone who could truly represent the opinion of eastern farmers.
And what have we heard from the few Quebec members on the government side who have taken part in this debate? They were content to commend the government for its policy, at a time when the farmers are leaving the land by the thousands, for lack of an income adequate to meet the needs of their families.
The farm situation in eastern Canada is pitiful, especially in the maritimes. This is something the Liberal government had recognized, and that is why the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent set up the Senate committee on land use, to seek a solution and to draft an agricultural planning program. It has been said that to govern is to foresee. Foresight had been a characteristic of the former Liberal government, and of all successive Liberal governments for a period of 22 years.
Western farmers remember that in 1935 they were in a sorry plight because of successive droughts which had caused large scale social and economic problems. That is why the Liberal government acted to apply the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, which had been submitted to the house on the eve of a general election. In fact, if we consider
Marginal Lands Development the proportion of farms with an annual return of less than $1,200, we find that for the three provinces to which this legislation applies, only 4 per cent are in Saskatchewan, 9 per cent in Alberta and 10 per cent in Manitoba. That goes to show that the legislation passed by the Liberal government has been effective and, today, the minister has no cause to accuse the members of the opposition of being hostile to western farmers.
Instead of this, we would have expected the minister to extend the application of the P.F.R.A. to every part of Canada, something he had already said here he would do, but he did not. Hon. members on the government side have blamed the Liberals for all the farmers' troubles, but they kept silent.
It is time the government included in this act provisions that would take into account the needs of eastern farmers. I imagine the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) will accuse me again of contrariness, suggesting that I always have it in for western farmers. He does not even realize that legislation to help farmers has always been passed under a Liberal government.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to consider restoring the balance and especially to look into the situation of eastern farmers, without for all that overlooking the needs of western farmers. In the province of Quebec, an extensive study was carried on for three years by distinguished professors of Laval University; in fact they have just published a pamphlet dealing with farm improvements, and particularly-
(Text):


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Chown):: I am
sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I think I should point out to him that we are now on clause 3, which has to do with agreements for rural development projects, research and investigation, and the fact that the minister is to make use of the services of other departments. I am just referring quickly to the explanatory notes opposite the clause. The hon. member is now making the type of address that would be more acceptable on clause 1 than on clause 3. I wonder if he could in future relate his remarks more closely to the clause under consideration.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I must say that we are discussing the possibilities of increasing income and employment in the agricultural and rural areas. Hence, I fail to see why my remarks should be considered irrelevant.

Marginal Lands Development
Out of the 120,000 farms in the eastern provinces, 91,000 do not yield an income of more than $1,200. Is it by planting Christmas trees in the province of Quebec and in other eastern provinces that the Minister of Agriculture intends to provide an answer to the problem of agriculture?
Any attempt to have farmers believe this nonsense is mere window dressing. The problem is in the soil, in the fields, in the barn of the farmer, and not up there in the clouds.
Moreover, in some parts of the province of Ontario and of Quebec and in the maritime provinces, many farms would become economical units if they were made fit for agricultural operations through the development of drainage systems, the clearing of stones, and, in some cases, by the use of fertilizers and lime.
There are many instances where submarginal lands increased in value after being sold, due to the fact that the new owner undertook essential projects to improve productivity. I know two young farmers, in the eastern townships area, who bought a 250 acre farm on which the former owner could barely eke out a living. Today, after about 15 years of operation, the farm has 75 head of cattle and the owners are happy and thriving. These young farmers loved the land, more so, 1 am sure, than people who are quitting the farm in eastern Canada.
There are in eastern Canada a certain number of farms and hundreds of acres of tillable land out of which the owners could make a profit if they were given the means to develop them.
There are certain responsibilities which the government must assume when it is a matter of protecting a whole category of citizens on the way to ruin. This assistance should have as its first objective, the draining of land; second, clearing the land of stones, if necessary; and finally, the fertilizing of grazing land; and crop rotation on tillable lands, and the reforestation on others. Therein lies the whole problem of marginal and submarginal farms in eastern Canada.
I realize that this situation and those difficulties that are met with in eastern Canada are not found out west. I know, having lived and worked on western farms for a year, that they do not have any drainage problem.
They don't have to worry about the problem of the clearing of stones that we have in eastern Canada. Drainage and clearing of stones are two serious disadvantages that we


have to contend with. That is why I would ask that, in this new bill and in the drafting of regulations that will follow, the Minister of Agriculture give special attention to drainage and clearing of stones in eastern Canada.
Years ago, this house enacted the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, and all of us have felt its beneficial results. Besides, they are outlined in the publication issued by the Minister of Agriculture. Legislation that would give special attention to drainage and to the clearing of stones would have the same results in eastern Canada as the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act has had in western Canada.
Of course it would cost several million dollars to apply such a scheme; but would it not be worth while spending a hundred million a year, considering that such a program would benefit six eastern provinces and would help to keep on the land some of the 91,000 farmers who, otherwise, will swell the ranks of the unemployed in the cities?
We are spending about $1,600,000,000 on national defence, to build planes and appliances of war which are obsolete even before they are put into service. Would it not be worth while to sacrifice one or two of these to the cause of agriculture, and to safeguard family farms?
I could go on speaking on this subject, Mr. Chairman, but I shall close my remarks at this point.
However, I would urge the minister to give serious consideration to the request we have placed before him on behalf of eastern farmers. And I urge fellow members from eastern Canada, if the idea I have just put forward is agreeable to them, to give it their support.
Mr. Chairman, I should now like to raise a question of privilege.
At this moment, I should be attending a meeting of the steering committee of the committee on agriculture and colonization. Would it not be possible to arrange the program in such a way that we might attend the proceedings of the house when it is dealing with matters of interest to us, and also attend the meetings of the committee on agriculture and colonization, of whose steering committee I am a member, when it is sitting.
(Text):


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska has just indicated that he is a member of the steering committee of a committee of this house dealing with agriculture, and if I understood him aright, he wondered why this matter could not be allowed to stand so he could discharge his responsibilities there. The minister

did not make any physical move that would indicate his interest in the suggestion made by the hon. member. While he is thinking about the request made by the hon. gentleman, I should like to make a few remarks on this particular clause.
Clause 3 (1) (a) provides as follows:
3. (1) The minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, enter into an agreement with any province providing for
(a) the undertaking jointly with the government of the province or any agency thereof of projects for the development of income and employment opportunities in rural agricultural areas specified in the agreement and for improving standards of living in those areas;
With regard to subclause (a) I have this comment to make. Of course no one in this chamber will fail to support any positive effort by the administration for the purpose of promoting projects that will develop income and employment opportunities in rural or other areas in our country; nor will any hon. member oppose any efforts made by the administration to improve the standard of living in those areas. I make these observations because of what I am now going to say, and I hope the minister will not suggest that my remarks now can be construed as meaning that we are not interested in seeing an improvement in the standard of living of the farmers of our country or that we are not anxious to see an improvement in their income and their employment opportunities.
However, I suggest to the minister that this kind of language in a bill is most unusual. The purposes or the objectives of a bill are generally stated in the preamble, and in the preamble of this bill the objectives of this legislation are stated, and I believe they are stated accurately, although I repeat that the bill is no more than a long term measure and does not in any way provide for any immediate improvement in agricultural economic conditions. To use the language in the first clause of the preamble, "their standard of living". The use of the phrases "development of income and employment opportunities" and "improving standards of living" in subclause (a) of clause 3 is a misuse of the form of legislative enactment traditionally resorted to in the House of Commons. The only purpose I can conceive for the inclusion of those phrases in this particular clause is in keeping with the general objective for which this minister in particular is especially noted, namely for propaganda purposes.
The clause itself does nothing to promote income and employment opportunities, nor does it do anything to improve standards of living. It simply gives the government, if it wishes to act, the authority to enter into
Marginal Lands Development agreements with the provinces for the promotion of projects which may have those objectives. But I say that, the objectives having been stated in the preamble, to repeat them in this way in the clause clearly reveals the immediate purpose the administration has in mind, notwithstanding whatever denial may come from the minister.
As I said before, I hope the minister will not misconstrue what I have said. Any project that will improve income and employment opportunities of the farmers in this country will be supported by every member of this committee. Any measure that will improve the standards of living of farmers will be supported by all members of this committee. But if one takes those phrases out of this clause practically nothing remains, and all that we in this committee are asked to vote on with regard to this clause is something that is already covered in the preamble, and is so general as to warrant the indictment I have made about the use of these phrases in an enactment that is supposed to create a new power for the administration pursuant to an act of parliament.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: What improvement in language does the hon. gentleman suggest?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would suggest language something like this. "The minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, enter into an agreement with any province providing for the undertaking jointly with the government of the province or any agency thereof of certain projects in accordance with the purposes of this act."


An hon. Member:: It is more vague.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not more vague. To repeat the language of the preamble, I say again, in a clause of a statute is a misuse of the form of enactment to which we resort in this house, and I should be greatly surprised if any draftsman in the Department of Justice initiated this language by himself. I can only conceive that the minister, with his well known technique of exaggeration and propaganda, is responsible for language of this kind.
Possibly the minister might deal later with this further query which I raise in connection with clause 3(1) (b) where the words appear-
The payment to the province of contributions in respect of the cost of such projects undertaken by the government of the province or any agency thereof.
Can the minister tell us whether it is the intention of the government of Canada, before prorogation, to bring forward by way of a supply estimate any proposed expenditure that might embrace this particular subclause
5588	HOUSE OF
Marginal Lands Development concerning the payment of contributions to a province? If the minister has a particular project in mind; if he anticipates, as he indicated when we discussed this matter on second reading that he will have at least a pilot project operating in each of the provinces, then it ought to be possible for him to say that it is his intention to bring forward a supplementary estimate providing for an amount of money to cover the payment to the provinces of contributions in respect of particular projects or pilot projects.
I suggest that the minister does not propose to bring forward any estimates, that no money is going to be voted this year. I further suggest that even next year the government will not bring forward any proposed expenditure of money pursuant to this bill, because no project can be finalized with the provinces under clause 7 of this bill unless parliament approves the spending of the money designed for that particular purpose. That would bring us away into the spring of next session unless we have some other intervening event. The probability is, therefore, that it is not an exaggeration to say that the government has no expenditure of public money in mind at all with respect to this measure in the foreseeable future.
While I am dealing with clause 3(l)(b) I might say to the minister that I doubt very much whether the words "or any agency thereof" fully meet the question put by the hon. member for Assiniboia the other day and the reply thereto by the Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member for Assiniboia wanted to know whether this bill would authorize the minister to enter into any arrangements with individual farmers or proprietors, and the minister replied, as I recall, that the bill would authorize the federal government to enter into agreements with the provinces so as to enable arrangements to be made with certain delegated bodies which might be composed of groups of farmers or landowners.
Assuming that this was the reply given by the minister, and I believe it was, is the minister satisfied that the words "or any agency thereof" give him the desired kind of authority? Surely this phrase means precisely what it says, an agency of the province. It might be a research board, it might be a farm loan board, it might be a marketing board or some body of that sort, but surely an agency of the province, unless there is a more precise definition, does not mean anybody to whom the province delegates a particular function under the authority which is alleged to exist in this bill. If the minister wants to do that very thing- and I believe he should want to do it-there


ought to be more precise language in this statute so it may be clear that we are authorizing the government to enter into arrangements with the provinces to provide for the delegation to non-governmental bodies of responsibility for carrying out the purposes of this bill.
The comment I made about the use in a legislative enactment of a certain form of words with respect to clause 3(l)(a) as distinguished from a preamble apply equally, of course, to clause 3(2), which says:
For the purpose of assisting the development of income and employment opportunities in rural agricultural areas in Canada and the improvement of standards of living in those areas, the minister may cause to be prepared and undertaken with the government of any province or any agency thereof or with any university, educational institution or person, programs of research and investigation, and co-ordinate such programs with other similar programs being undertaken in Canada.
That is a very laudable objective. Once again, of course, it is an objective addressed to the long term and not designed to bring any immediate redress to the farm income situation. But why is it necessary to restate, as the minister does in the first two lines of this subclause, lines 28 and 29 of this bill, the words "for the purpose of assisting the development of income and employment opportunities in rural agricultural areas in Canada"?
Of course that is the purpose. But the place to state it, as we all know, is in the preamble of the bill, and there it is already stated. To repeat it, as is done here, in the body of the bill is to prostitute the form of legislative enactment which is designed to state the law precisely without giving the author of the measure an opportunity of parading intentions which are, in any case, already stated in the preamble to the bill. It is not necessary to pass this preamble at all if this particular language is going to appear in this clause as it does in some other clauses of the bill.
I suggest to the minister that this draftsmanship is not in accordance with our practice in this house. It is bad draftsmanship. It is draftsmanship of a kind which I am sure was not initiated by the officials of the Department of Justice.
Moreover, I regret that this clause, important as it may be for the future, does not give any relief whatsoever to the farmers of Canada at the present time. That is a fact, notwithstanding all the minister has said in this house, notwithstanding what he has said in the speeches he has made throughout the country, notwithstanding all he has said in the pamphlet which has been printed in hundreds of thousands and copies of which have gone out from one end of this country

to another as representing an accomplished fact when this is nothing more than an intention; an intention to be realized in the distant future; an intention, moreover, which was born not in the mind of the Minister of Agriculture but in the mind of a former prime minister of this country who caused a study to be made of the whole question of rehabilitation, conservation and land use. I refer to Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent.
(Translation):


Mr. Martineau:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a few words on section 3.
The remarks I am about to make are inspired by those which the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Meunier) made when we were considering section 2, on May 22. The hon. member implied that section 2, the wording of which is the same as that of section 3, could in a way infringe upon provincial autonomy.
I have only two brief remarks to make in that connection. First, both section 2 and section 3 provide for agreements between the federal and provincial governments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. In my opinion, the hon. member should have made those remarks when section 2 was being examined, not section 3.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order raised by my hon. colleague, I wish to say that my comments on section 3 are relevant. I am saying that this section provides for agreements between the federal and provincial governments.
I am therefore, discussing section 3 and merely saying that it is based on the same principle as section 2. We can reply to the question as to whether or not section 3 has violated or will violate the provinces' rights, by using the same arguments as for section 2.
Now, first of all, there is to be a voluntary agreement between the federal government and the provinces. Therefore, this does not constitute an infringement upon provincial autonomy since it calls for an agreement on definite points. If a province feels that such an agreement is a violation of its autonomy, it does not have to be a party to the agreement.
Second, I should like to quote section 95 of the British North America Act:
In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to agriculture in the province, and to immigration into the province; and it is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to agriculture in all or any of the provinces, and to immigration into all or any of the provinces; and any law of the legislature of a province relative to agriculture or to immigration shall have effect in
Marginal Lands Development and for the province as long and as far as it is not repugnant to any act of the parliament of Canada.
Therefore, that section of the constitution authorizes the federal government to legislate in matters pertaining to agriculture and, consequently, to make agreements with any province that wishes to do so.
Therefore, I feel that the committee has no reason to fear that this legislation violates provincial autonomy.	[DOT]


Mr. Habel:: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to say a few words about section 3. The minister makes much of this act. In fact, under this section 3, it would be possible to enter into agreements with the provincial governments about those studies that would have to be undertaken to assist in the development of rural areas.
The minister seems to have a special disposition for visions. Not so long ago-we recall it easily-he had a great vision about the Canadian north, and having failed to make that vision come true he felt the need to move to a different department in quest of some other vision. And now it turns out that his new vision is based on the outcome of a study made by the committee appointed by the St. Laurent government, by the former Liberal government. And the minister is expecting much of the possible results of this work and of this co-operation between the federal and provincial departments of agriculture.
Well, I wish to inform this house that in my constituency we did not wait for the vision of the present Minister of Agriculture to decide to do something. In fact, as soon as the Senate committee was established, the county agriculturist was able to obtain from the Ontario department of agriculture authority to set up a survey committee. I have here the complete report of a survey made in that area where farms are not adequately productive, so to speak, and do not yield a reasonable income.
For the minister's information, I wish to say that this is a complete survey. I have on hand reports of many such surveys. In addition, the report drawn up by this provincial committee clearly indicates that the bill now before us, which the minister feels is based on his new vision, is but a mere extension of the work which the St. Laurent government had undertaken through the formation of a senate committee. In short, this bill would be a mere extension of the work already undertaken by certain provincial governments who did not wait for the announcement of the new vision of the Minister of Agriculture.
5590	HOUSE OF
Marginal Lands Development
(Text):
Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 6-Advisory committees.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, clause 6 provides for the setting up of advisory committees. I assume that these committees need not necessarily be composed of government personnel on federal-provincial account, but may be composed of non-government bodies such as farm organizations and the like. Could the minister inform us whether any such committees have been set up?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question relating to the advisory committees referred to in section 6.
Has the minister consulted any organization in the province of Quebec before this bill was drafted? Did he get in touch with Quebec farm organizations, professional farmers or any other organization before writing out the bill?
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I should like to know which Canadian organizations and specially which Quebec organizations were consulted.
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, first of all consultation takes place through the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which represents all agricultural organizations in Canada; and second, with the various organizations in each of the provinces which may be interested. An example of that would be the dairy farmers of Canada. One of the directors of that organization comes from the province of Quebec. I also, of course, consult the minister and deputy minister of that province.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend the minister for consulting various national organizations. But I do not think he had any consultation with the organization which really represents farmers in the province of Quebec.
I doubt that he had any conference with these farmers who won gold medals in various farming competitions. And I refer to the


best hog producers of the province of Quebec and the best farmers. They are the ones who would have given him the best advice on writing a bill for the improvement of the situation of the agricultural population, particularly in the east.
We have cause to wonder, today, about the advantages we will obtain through this legislation. We can obtain a lot and again we can obtain little, depending of course upon the sincerity of the administration and the Minister of Agriculture.
This bill may mean very little, and it could mean a lot, not only because of its phraseology, but also because of its implementation.
We cannot blame the government for not acting. This is a step in the right direction, we commend them for it and we will support the measure.
However, if we go back in time a little and examine the achievements of the Conservative administration thrown out of office in 1935, we find that at that time very good legislation had been enacted. In 1935, for instance, the P.F.R.A. was adopted by a Conservative government, but was never implemented. It was enacted on the eve of the general elections and I doubt that the act we may adopt today reflects genuinely serious motives. I feel that it stems from a desire to make a little window dressing and to obtain votes.
I would hope that I am mistaken-
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member should be allowed to make those remarks. He has imputed motives to me, and I do not think any hon. member is allowed to do this.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am
afraid I did not hear what the hon. gentleman said. Perhaps the minister would enlighten me, since he is the one who is aggrieved.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: According to the translation system, the hon. member said I did not bring in this bill with any clear-cut motive in mind; that it was brought in purely to win votes. I do not think the imputation of motives of that sort is allowed under our rules.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I did not impute wrong motives to the minister. I was merely judging from past experience when we adopted acts that were not put into force. That is why I doubt that this one is justified.

(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am afraid I will have to ask for a ruling from you, Mr. Chairman, on the statement in which the hon. member said I did not bring in this legislation from clear motives but to win votes.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I cannot find anything unparliamentary in what the hon. member said. Following what he did say I understood that he had to a very large extent withdrawn any wrong imputations or suggestions directed toward the minister in the short statement he just made.


Mr. Pitman:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to obtain a little more definite information in regard to these advisory committees, because I believe the success or failure of this legislation will depend on them. I should like to know just exactly how many committees are to be established. Is there to be one in each province? What kind of people are going to be on those committees? One of the things the minister said when he was speaking on this legislation was that the success of a part of this bill would depend, and here I quote, "almost entirely on the rapidity with which the provinces wish to push this program". Surely a large part of the success of this legislation depends upon the leadership which is given by Ottawa and, of course, by the minister himself. A great deal of the success of this legislation will depend upon the kind of committees to be set up under this particular clause of the bill.
I am wondering, for example, whether a pattern has been given to the people who are to form these committees. I notice that one particular article the minister read discussed the fact that part of this legislation was to encourage local industry, the provision of recreational facilities, technical training and so forth. Are people from all those fields going to act on those advisory committees?
I am wondering, for example, whether there will be an attempt by the advisory committee to estimate how much food Canada will need in the next 10, 15 or 20 years. Will there be an attempt to bring research into the whole area? Will there be an estimate of how much food Canada will be expected to produce in terms of world needs over the next 15 or 20 years? In other words, are those advisory committees to be strictly agricultural in their impact? Are they to be very broad committees which will attempt to deal with the whole area of marketing and the general economic needs as well as training, and various other things which are discussed? Also, as a matter of interest, I should like to know whether the farmers' union have been brought into the area of those advisory committees, and whether they will contain members representing that organization.
Marginal Lands Development


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the first question as to how many committees there will be, I do not think any person at this time can give a final answer to this question. It is thought that there certainly will be a dominion-provincial committee at the national level. In each province there will be a dominion-provincial committee at the provincial level which, of course, can work with local regional groups. There is another type of advisory board which will be dealing with particular subjects which we have in mind, on which there will be people who have knowledge of the matter and will be able to look into that particular subject.
The next question was who will be on the committees. I think the obvious answer to that would be the ones best suited, in the case of Canada, to give the answers to the special problems, and in the case of the joint committee as between the provinces and the federal government I imagine it would be the type of representatives of both the provincial and the federal governments who are experts on the general A.R.D.A. bill. It is more or less an administrative group.
The final subject raised was whether they will be discussing the particular implications of over-all planning of the agricultural industry in relation to other industries. The answer is yes and no; yes in the sense that before you can properly set up a new development in any particular regional area certainly you will have to know that there is a market for the products you are going to produce. There will have to be planning in relation to the over-all marketing situation in that type of problem.
The answer "no" deals with the fact that we have coming up in Canada in October of this year the resources for tomorrow conference, which has been given as its terms of reference the laying down of principles for the use of all our renewable resources as among the provinces, the federal government and private interests that control some of them. Under their terms of reference I would expect they will be coming up with a series of principles and directions along which I hope each of our joint respective jurisdictions and each of the powers concerned with the resources will travel.
To come back again to what I said on the introduction of this legislation at the resolution stage, the bill was originally timed in our thinking for the national agricultural program of 1958, to follow after the resources for tomorrow conference. Because of the inability of the expert people to get the conference ready last fall the agricultural bill has come ahead; but I pointed out at the time that I thought everything we were doing under A.R.D.A. would be in conformity with

Marginal Lands Development the principles of the resources for tomorrow conference. In any event, I did not think they would ever restrict our terms of reference. It is more likely that we would broaden them.
I do hope this gives an answer to the question, which I think was searching after something really sound and substantial in the efforts that we are making in this bill.


Walter George Pitman: I have one more question. I asked about the farmers' union. Possibly the minister will enlighten me on this. Will this advisory committee be integrated with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources? Is it going to be integrated into a full-scale plan which the resources for tomorrow conference is really asking for in a long time organizational way? Is it just for the conference only, or is it projected into the next 15 or 20 years?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: To save time, I refer the hon. member to my speech at the resolution stage in which I outlined that one of the responsibilities of the Minister of Agriculture under this legislation would be to co-ordinate the activities of all the departments affected at the federal level. I listed seven departments on that occasion going through the whole range right down to citizenship and immigration because we are very concerned that the Indians be brought into the total resource picture, particularly on the agricultural side where we can give them the advantage of opportunities as we locate and discover them.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 7-Expenditures.
Mr. Caron:: Has the minister any information as to the amount that will be required from the treasury to carry this bill into effect?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will answer that question but I should like to go on to the next clause because it properly comes under that.


Alexis Pierre Caron: We are on clause 7. It is because the chairman called clause 7 that I asked the question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am quite pleased to answer. We are on clause 7 now. I was answering the hon. member for Peterborough on clause 6. An estimate of the total cost each year is certainly impossible in the early stages. The hon. member for Essex East was quite right in pointing out that this is long term legislation. I have made an estimate that over the next 10 to 20 years our share of the expenditure will be roughly
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1

$600 million. That is an estimate of about $15 million a year on the average that I would say we could spend, but there may be a lot more or a lot less spent depending on the way the projects go forward.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, this is a rather interesting observation on the part of the minister. He says that he would estimate that in 20 years there might be an expenditure of $600 million. Does that expenditure represent the federal contributions alone or does it represent the total cost provided for by the two senior levels of government? When is the first estimated amount of $15 million going to be spent? The minister said he could not say what the annual amount would be in later years but he thought that at the beginning it would be around $15 million. Will there be an estimate provided this year in the amount of $15 million or an amount approaching that figure? Will there be a similar amount next year?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think that question has been answered on several occasions in the past but I will try once again. In the experience we have had with the Conservative legislation passed in 1935, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, we found that there was a slow build-up at the beginning but after a while a certain level of expenditure developed that seemed to bring the demand for those services into relationship with the machinery we had to supply. An average annual expenditure developed which seemed to be sufficient to meet the particular demands. Based on that experience I calculated, with the help of some of the men working with me on this subject, that a reasonable level that could be expected under the bill would be an average expenditure by the federal government of approximately $15 million a year. I do not know what proportion local people, municipalities or provincial governments will be paying because the proportions will vary with each agreement in each province.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My question was whether there would be a $15 million budget presented during the present fiscal year?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not expect to do that because it is obvious I have to get the bill through first and that I have to get at least one agreement signed with one province before we can spend any money. It is also obvious that before I can spend money and make the agreement complete I have to come before parliament under this clause and secure authority to spend it. It is possible, of course, as the hon. member knows, that we might be able to work out an agreement or two under which action could go forward in

so far as the province was concerned with the full understanding that before we could put up any money the expenditure would have to be agreed to by parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall
the bill carry?


Walter George Pitman: Can the minister tell us what his timetable is now? I understand he gave a timetable the last time this matter was before the house and said that he hoped to have some agreements with the provinces by the end of this year. What is his hope now? I think he was three months behind the last time he spoke on this subject.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am afraid the hon. member is once again a few days behind because I dealt with this matter on second reading. I said that I had proceeded with second reading about the first of May as I had promised and that I hoped by the end of this year to have at least one pilot operation in each of the provinces. I do not think there is going to be any doubt about being able to find these pilot operations. It is a question of deciding which one we will start with first. We are very anxious, as are the provinces, to make sure that before we move there is no mistake because in this type of long range program getting a good start is more important than getting a fast start. We have waited 35 years for this program and another few months will not decide its fate one way or the other.


Mr. Carter:: I should like to ask one question. When the principle of the bill was being debated on second reading I believe there was some inference that the principle of rural rehabilitation would apply to fishing communities as well as to agricultural communities. Nothing is mentioned in the bill that could be construed as applying to fishing communities. Did I interpret what was said on second reading wrongly or does the minister plan to bring in further legislation?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member has asked a very important question. Under the bill I am required to deal with such projects as agricultural matters. We certainly know that in the eastern part of Prince Edward Island, on the north shore of New Brunswick and a good deal of the coast of Nova Scotia and parts of Newfoundland there is a combination of uses of land, mostly forest and farming but occasionally fishing. We have discussed this matter and other legislation 90205-6-353
Food and Drugs Act
such as that providing farm credits and have decided that if we can work out some combination under which the operation can be called farming this bill will cover it. I have been in conversation with the premier of Newfoundland about this matter and he agrees with me that if we can keep the basic idea of agriculture with fishing as just one of the activities such lands can be included in the rehabilitation of an area. That is one of the ways of providing income for the farmers but it is going to be classified as farm income.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Now, by leave?


Mr. Churchill:: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


Jay Waldo Monteith: the second reading of Bill No. C-99, to amend the Food and Drugs Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the measure in respect of which it is my privilege to move second reading is one that I am sure will be of considerable interest to the house. Hon. members are aware of the publicity which has been directed to what are referred to in the criminal underworld vernacular as goof balls. While there is no legal definition for this term, it is widely used to describe a barbiturate or an amphetamine tablet when employed for a non-medical purpose. Goof balls are frequently combined with an alcoholic beverage and are deliberately taken to provide a kick or stimulus which the user either requires or finds enjoyable.
I am advised that these substances are sometimes used by criminals to give them a feeling of confidence or courage in their commission of crime. Another use of these substances involves young people and here the practice is particularly vicious. Teenagers frequenting dance halls and other places of amusement or entertainment, will employ goof balls as a chemical crutch to get some form of stimulus, lift or kick, as the case may be. In addition, narcotic addicts when deprived of narcotics will often turn to these substances for help or support until narcotic medication becomes available. Alcoholics may also use them in a similar manner.
Barbiturates when used for medical purposes are regarded as sedatives and are principally employed for sleeplessness and for the relief of emotional stress or strain.

Food and Drugs Act
Under medical supervision, they are extremely beneficial and are widely used. When improperly used tor the purposes I have indicated, they are not only harmful but frequently disastrous, if not tragic, in their results. They are habit forming if continually or indiscriminately used and in some respects can be said to be addictive.
Amphetamines, under medical supervision, are employed for a number of purposes. They are essentially used for appetite control to reduce overweight, and to relieve mental depression. Because of their stimulating effect on the nervous system, they are capable of helping to sustain mental or physical effort. They combat drowsiness and impede sleep. I am advised that they are often employed by persons engaged in more or less monotonous occupations requiring long hours of effort. Truck drivers on long hauls are frequently reported to use amphetamines to keep them awake and alert.
Experience has shown that persons using amphetamines may require barbiturates to counteract their effect and, conversely, persons using barbiturates may require amphetamines for the same purpose. Their association in the case of motor vehicle operators can be particularly hazardous.
Several years ago, reports were received indicating that barbiturates and amphetamines were easily procurable without a prescription in a number of retail pharmacy outlets. It was not considered, however, that there existed any form of illicit underworld traffic in these substances.
Investigations were subsequently made by inspectors of the food and drug directorate in an attempt to ascertain the extent to which these drugs could be purchased without a prescription in retail stores. As a result of a survey made some four years ago of 2,400 drug stores-or approximately half the total number in Canada-evidence was secured which warranted prosecutions being instituted against some 150 pharmacists. This evidence, however, did not indicate any widespread illicit traffic in these drugs but rather infractions of the requirements of the regulations calling for the sale only upon a prescription.
Within the past year and a half or so, however, other reports have reached us indicating that apart from some infractions of the regulations by retail pharmacists, there also existed a form of illicit underworld traffic in these drugs. This has been investigated by the R.C.M.P. and the results of their investigation clearly support the present existence of such a traffic.

I thought it would be useful if I reviewed very briefly the development of this situation, including the steps that have been taken under the present legislation, as well as the necessity for the additional measures which are now up for consideration.
The hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque), who has discussed this matter on previous occasions in the house, will, I am sure, be glad to know that the government has been fully conscious of the situation and has for some time had under consideration possible ways by which the problem could be effectively met.
While from information gathered by the R.C.M.P. it is clear that a traffic in goof balls does exist in the major cities where there is a criminal underworld element, the situation in Montreal was considered sufficiently serious by the mayor of that city to convene a citizens' committee to deal with the problem. The committee, consisting of all interested groups and organizations, has issued a report recommending that certain steps be taken to combat it. I am pleased to inform the house that our original thinking in developing the measure which is now under consideration, included the very steps which the committee has subsequently recommended for adoption.
In view of the existence of an illicit traffic in barbiturates and amphetamines, hon. members may well wonder why it would not be simpler or preferable merely to include them with narcotics and to deal with the traffic as part of the narcotic traffic. The question is particularly relevant inasmuch as the measures which are proposed to deal with the illicit traffic in these substances are comparable in some respects with the measures which are necessary for the narcotic traffic. There are, however, differences which make it desirable that despite the similarity of enforcement measures, they should be dealt with under separate pieces of legislation.
In the first place, goof balls cannot be classed as narcotics. They are not so classed by the international agencies. Secondly, their medical use is different from that of narcotics. They are much more commonly employed by practitioners than are narcotics. Any proposal, therefore, to deal with barbiturates and amphetamines as narcotics would not receive favour or support from the medical profession. Their objection to such a course would be heightened by the additional psychological reason that it would be unfortunate to characterize barbiturates and amphetamines as narcotics and thus give them the form of stigma that is ordinarily associated with any continued need for, or use of, narcotics.

There is one further difference which of itself requires that barbiturates and amphetamines should be dealt with for legal purposes under the Food and Drugs Act and not as narcotics under that legislation. I refer to the question of possession.
Both in the narcotic act, as well as in this bill, there is established the offence of trafficking and of possession for the purpose of trafficking. Trafficking is the illegal distribution of drugs and it follows that possession for that purpose is related to trafficking but with some procedural difference in its proof. It goes without saying that in the case of a charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking, an important element would be the quantity found and the circumstances under which it was found. This has been substantially the criterion in narcotic enforcement and would be similarly applied in the case of an offence under the proposed Food and Drugs Act amendment.
In the case, however, of simple possession and not possession for the purpose of trafficking, there will be an important difference between narcotic legislation and that contained in this bill. The possession of a narcotic in any form other than as provided in the act or the regulations is a punishable offence. It is not proposed except in the case of possession for trafficking to make such possession a punishable offence under the Food and Drugs Act.
The reason for this difference is the clear distinction that can be drawn between narcotics and the drugs covered by this bill. Narcotics are not normally drugs which would be kept in the home, whereas barbiturates, and to some extent amphetamines, are quite likely to be included in the family medicine cabinet.
Narcotics as a rule would be prescribed on a very limited basis and for a particular purpose which would generally preclude any quantity or supply being on hand after the immediate need had disappeared. This, however, is not the case with barbiturates and in many households in Canada it is customary to maintain a supply of barbiturates for sleeplessness or for use by way of harmless sedation. Although these drugs can be obtained only pursuant to a prescription, which in turn is directed to a particular member of the family, they may be and frequently are used by other members of the family who are not covered by the prescription. It is not considered necessary or desirable that the use of a barbiturate by a member of the family under these circumstances should be made a crime. For this reason, the legislation does not, except as 90205-6-353i
Food and Drugs Act
regards possession for the purpose of trafficking, make simple possession-even when not supported by legal authority-a criminal offence.
Family use under these circumstances is not the evil at which the legislation is aimed and this of itself would require a difference in the enforcement approach.
In addition to the above reasons, it is not thought necessary or desirable that the present illicit traffic in barbiturates and amphetamines should be dramatized or given the importance of the illicit traffic in narcotics and it follows that lesser penalties are considered to be sufficient under the circumstances.
I trust that this explanation will suffice to assure hon. members that this aspect has been given very careful consideration and that despite the similarity of the enforcement aspects, there is good reason for the separation. This, however, will not result in any duplication of effort or of enforcement because the R.C.M.P. will handle the illicit traffic in goof balls along with the illicit traffic in narcotics.
Apart from the suppression of the illicit traffic which will be a responsibility of the R.C.M.P. and, where necessary, other local enforcement agencies, the legal importation and distribution of these substances will be subjected to stricter control than is considered necessary in the case of other drugs which are subject to the Food and Drugs Act.
At the present time, the drugs covered by this bill can be sold only on a prescription and it is not proposed that this will be changed in any way. We do feel, however, that stricter control at the importation, manufacturing and distribution levels is required. This in no sense will impede or interfere with the legal availability of these drugs for proper medical purposes.
Unfortunately, the sources from which traffickers obtain their supplies of goof balls are not always ascertainable. It may be that they are sometimes obtained by theft or diversion from legal sources or it may be that in some cases they are illicitly manufactured. It is felt, however, that if legal sources are substantially tightened, then to the extent that goof balls are obtained by diversion, that source of supply will of itself disappear.
The tightening up of control, therefore, really involves the licensing of importers, manufacturers and wholesale distributors as well as the keeping of special records by such persons which will be subject to audit and examination. This will enable the tracing of supplies to the point of retail distribution in the course of which any unusual or improper dealings will automatically come to light.

Food and Drugs Act
None of these requirements will, however, impose any undue burden on those legitimately engaged in or dealing with these substances and I can assure hon. members that from discussions with the industry no difficulty is expected in bringing about full compliance with the new controls that are proposed.
Respecting the legal medical use of these drugs, there have been reports from time to time indicating dangers from a growing use of or dependence on them. The evidence which is available does not substantiate to any extent the fears so expressed. However, there is no question that in modern society a growing dependence is developing on certain chemical substances for stress, strain and other matters which perhaps were unknown to our forefathers in more leisurely times.
The legislation does not purport to interfere with the legitimate use of any drugs but merely attempts to provide such controls as may be necessary to ensure that proper safeguards accompany the manufacture, distribution and use of drugs where necessary.
The possibility of loose or indiscriminate prescribing of controlled drugs by a very few medical practitioners in Canada will be effectively met by the new measures which are proposed. I am glad, moreover, to assure the house that these proposals have in principle been discussed with representatives of organized medicine who are in agreement with their purpose.
I should like to say at this point that while authority will be provided in the law requiring the keeping of special records by all persons who deal in these substances-and this could well include members of the professions-there is no present intention that practitioners will be required to keep any special records in addition to those which are normally involved in good medical practice. Retail pharmacists will be required to keep special records but these will not be other than those normally required in good pharmaceutical practice. At the same time, authority will be included in the regulations to require a particular individual to furnish explanation as may be necessary respecting his use of these substances and to provide for such information, if necessary, being furnished to the provincial licensing authorities responsible for his right to practise.
I have attempted to set forth the problem in as factual and objective a way as possible so that hon. members will understand its extent and the necessity for the measures which are proposed for its solution. We have every reason to believe that the problem will be effectively checked by these proposals. We are convinced, however, that unless adequate

measures are taken, the problem could well grow in size and importance and become increasingly difficult to remedy.
I can assure the house that the proposals which are set out in this measure are those which in the opinion of the competent authorities-including the R.C.M.P., officers of my department and others who are familiar with the problem-will be adequate and effective. It is our view that every measure needed to stamp out the illicit traffic should be taken and the legislation is designed to permit this being done. At the same time, it is not thought necessary or desirable that any undue restrictions should be placed on the legitimate employment of controlled drugs for medical purposes and the legislation will not have such an effect. Rather, it is the hope of the government that the proposed amendment will bring the matter under control so that it may never reach the proportions of the problem posed by narcotics.
In conclusion, it may be appropriate to mention that the problem which I have described as existing in Canada with regard to barbiturates and amphetamines is also one that is to be found in other countries. I am advised that many other countries at the present time are giving serious consideration to what effective measures should be taken to control the dangers resulting from the unnecessary and non-medical use of these very substances. It is, I think, fitting that Canada should be among the first nations to recognize the problem and to take appropriate action to deal with it.


Mr. Romuald Bourque (Outremoni-St. Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that, after all these years, the government has at last realized that there is such a thing as a goof ball problem. I hope that now when I speak of the goof ball problem hon. members will realize that it is a serious one, as is now recognized by the government. At the time when I first spoke about goof balls there were perhaps two or three hundred goof ball addicts, but unfortunately the number has grown to such an extent that I think the government is going to have a difficult time attempting to control these drugs.
At the present time these drugs can be obtained in Montreal proper. I know that because I come from Montreal. They can be obtained there in capsules. Some capsules are pink and others are of various colours. The capsules are small in size, being about half an inch in length and about one eighth of an inch in diameter. I presume that these capsules are prepared by the pushers or peddlers of the drugs. They are easily obtainable, I understand.

Hon. members may recall that last week I displayed some 1,500 or 1,800 different clippings which I have gathered over the last few years from various newspapers. They included editorials and full page articles in the weekly papers. In particular they illustrated the danger of the goof ball problem in Montreal. Hundreds of youths have been driven to crime through the use of these drugs and those hon. members who read newspaper articles on this subject only a short time ago will know that crimes have been committed in Montreal which are directly attributable to the use of goof balls, including riots in penitentiaries. One young man went into a cabaret at night and asked to be served with liquor. The bartender said he could not be served. The young man went home, got a revolver, took a goof ball and returned to the club. He waited at the door from midnight to four o'clock and when the bartender came out at four o'clock he shot his head off.
A young man or a young woman who is given goof balls will stop at nothing. Persons so affected will commit any crime, because they lose control and become completely crazy. They have no control over their senses. I am glad the government has at last realized that this is a serious problem and that measures should be taken to include this drug within the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act and allow the R.C.M.P. to handle these cases, because it is not for an amateur to handle this problem.
I wonder whether the minister has received a delegation which was formed in Montreal lately. I notice that the mayor of Montreal has written to the minister. He had arranged for meetings to be held in Montreal of a group of people including police authorities, prominent drug authorities, scientists, college professors and others who realize the danger which is caused to any city when drugs such as these can be obtained by anyone who wants to buy them. I repeat that I am indeed glad that the minister has seen fit to take up this question. Perhaps it will not be possible now to eradicate the practice of resorting to these barbiturates, but I hope the R.C.M.P. will have a better control over the situation and be placed in a better position to see that our youth is not contaminated further by pushers who will stop at nothing to put them in the way of crime.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: With respect to the bill before us, it does indicate, I think, that the government realizes that this is a serious problem. I know that it has been so, and increasingly so, in the city of Vancouver for a few years. Vancouver, of course, has the highest population of narcotics addicts
Food and Drugs Act
in Canada and it would possess along with that, a similar interest in barbiturates as they are generally called.
I was reading the Vancouver Sun yesterday, and if I can make a brief reference to the issue of May 27, 1961 with respect to this matter I would mention an article by a Vancouver Sun reporter who visited certain places in Vancouver, bars, restaurants and the like, and purchased from people there a number of goof balls or what he identified as seconal capsules for 50 cents each. I do not want to refer to the article by reading sections from it. Generally, what he discovered was that these barbiturates were being sold somewhat secretively in the places he visited, and there was a continual reference to the need to be more secretive about it because the law was getting more tough in ferreting out those behind this trade in barbiturates or so called good balls. During the course of three hours this reporter bought 11 seconal tablets or capsules for 50 cents each from various persons. All he had to do was to make inquiries of a waiter or someone in a cafe or of some of the people who lounge around the streets in some parts of Vancouver and he had no difficulty in purchasing 11 of these tablets or vials within a period of three hours.
I think one of the reasons why there has been a larger traffic in barbiturates in Vancouver than in other parts of Canada is because of the high proportion of narcotics addicts on the west coast. Narcotics addicts sometimes use certain types of barbiturates. Narcotics addicts in the sense of those devoted to heroin or morphine or some of the more powerful narcotic drugs will take barbiturates occasionally when they are unable to get a supply of morphine or heroin or something of that kind. Barbiturates are to some degree a substitute, and taking them lessens the withdrawal symptoms which a narcotics addict experiences when he cannot obtain his normal dosage of a narcotic, or his next fix, as the expression is. The effect of barbiturates on the individual concerned is somewhat the same as the effect of morphine or heroin as far as withdrawal symptoms are concerned.
Barbiturates have an effect on the personality of the individual who takes them in somewhat the same way as alcohol affects some individuals by changing their personality and attitude from one of mildness and quietude to one of furiousness, filled with a desire to fight or destroy something. The effect of barbiturates is such that one's personality generally is changed. The effect of amphetamine is, I understand, somewhat different in this regard. There, the effect is one of producing hallucinations. I believe a

Food and Drugs Act
number of truck drivers resort to dexedrine or stay awake pills or benzedrine in order to prevent them falling asleep while driving trucks. But, by using these tablets, or whatever they are, they report seeing all kinds of strange objects and items on the road in front of them. According to medical opinion the so-called goof balls are as insidious and dangerous, if not more so, than narcotics themselves, which are dealt with under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.
There is certainly no regulation or control provided in this bill, as it exists, in respect of the use or distribution of these drugs. I have serious doubt whether it will solve the basic question in respect of the use of barbiturates. While it is true that notice of a motion appeared this morning in routine proceedings and orders of the day regarding the introduction of a bill to provide for the control of narcotic drugs, which will put into effect a policy statement made a few months ago, I expect there will be a system established involving the use of clinics, hospitals or institutions for the segregation and treatment of narcotic drug addicts. This kind of a program has been lacking in this country, as well as in other countries of the world, for many years. If the proposed policy in respect of the trafficking and addiction of individuals to barbiturates is to be similar to the program followed in respect of heroin and opium, which involves only incarceration, then I am afraid we will not solve this problem. The effect may be the emptying of our penitentiaries of narcotic addicts, by placing them in treatment centres, and filling their vacancies in the penitentiaries with addicts and traffickers of barbiturates. If that is the case, the same problem will exist, because there then will not be segregation of addicts to barbiturates and addicts to narcotics. I would hope that under the proposed bill, in respect of the control of narcotic drug trafficking, a policy will be adopted to segregate these addicts from other prisoners, and that a similar course will be followed in respect to the treatment of barbiturate addicts, and those individuals convicted of trafficking in barbiturates.
I must apologize to the minister for not being here for the whole of his opening statement. I had not expected that this bill would be reached as soon as it was. I should like to make another comment in regard to the proposed bill, and perhaps the minister will make some explanation, if he has not already done so.
I understand that when an individual is convicted summarily or on indictment, the penalty will be 18 months and 10 years' imprisonment respectively. After considering

that portion of this proposed bill, I have concluded that is not the case, but that an individual convicted on indictment will be liable to imprisonment up to 10 years. That is, from one year to 10 years, depending upon the discretion of the courts. I understand the individual is also liable to a fine in addition to a term of imprisonment. I should like the minister to explain that portion of the bill, in order to clear up any misunderstanding in this regard.
There is another principle contained in this bill which I feel is rather strange and unique, considering the normal procedures of a court. The bill states that unauthorized trafficking in controlled drugs, as the bill refers to them, is illegal. However, it is my understanding that, under this bill, the possession of these controlled drugs is not illegal. If my understanding of this portion of the bill is accurate, then an individual charged with trafficking, which is the only offence in this respect, who does not plead guilty, will be tried on the same basis as an individual in possession of controlled drugs. That seems very strange to me, in view of the fact that it is not an offence to be in possession of these barbiturates. I presume there is some reason for this principle, and should like the minister to explain it for my benefit.
I understand that if a man is charged with illegal possession of drugs, the onus falls on him to establish one of two things, firstly, that he acquired the drug from a pharmacist or some authorized person; or second, that he was not in possession of the drug for the purpose of trafficking. I suggest it would perhaps be easy to prove the former; that he acquired these drugs from a pharmacist or doctor. However, for what reason could he be in possession of these drugs other than for the purpose of trafficking, unless he was a barbiturate addict? If that were the purpose of his being in possession of them, and in order to prove it, he would then have to establish his source. If he had not obtained the barbiturate from an authorized individual, he must have acquired it in an illegal manner, such as by breaking and entering a drug store, the theft of a doctor's bag, or a theft from some other place. The individual may well have purchased them from an illegal trafficker. By admitting so, he would be admitting another illegal act. I suggest this placing of the burden of proof upon the accused individual is rather an unfair approach to the problem. If the individual charged pleads not guilty to trafficking, then in all likelihood he must admit guilt in respect of another illegal act. I should like to know what benefit he will then derive from this admission?


Mr. Woolliams:: Will the hon. member permit a question? I was wondering whether the hon. member had thought of the protection of the Canada Evidence Act?


Frank Howard: Yes, I had. Since I am not a lawyer I have to take the advice of people who are lawyers. Sometimes this leads one astray, Mr. Speaker; but I have been told that the protection under the Canada Evidence Act-and I was about to come to this-applies only to protection with respect to questions asked. A person is not being asked questions under those circumstances; he is voluntarily taking action to prove his innocence. Thus I say he does not have protection under the Canada Evidence Act in this regard. When we get to this particular point what will be required will be another sort of legal fiction. We have engaged in one example of that already. The minister said that the court will proceed as if the individual had been charged with something else which is not an offence under the act. In committee we should also make an amendment bringing in another sort of legal fiction to the effect that if in the course of establishing that he had those controlled drugs not for the purpose of trafficking his responses would be deemed to be as if he had been asked such questions, and he would be given the same protection under the Canada Evidence Act as if he had been asked those particular questions.
As I say, this was the advice given to me by a member of the legal profession. I know how out of sorts those gentlemen are one with the other at times and how easy it is for them to come to a disagreement over something, particularly law, or what statute law means. I think this would be the effect of one of the principles of this legislation. If an individual were charged with an offence and attempted to prove his innocence he might incriminate himself, or might be in a position possibly to incriminate himself, depending on other circumstances, with respect to his argument of proof. I say that if this is the effect of the part of the bill dealing with the prosecution and the approach in court, then it is unique and strange and a rather dangerous way to proceed. It is something that we might deal with in detail when we get into committee on the bill. I believe it is part of the principle of the bill itself because it deals with the process used to decide whether or not an individual is guilty.
In essence, Mr. Speaker, I think the bill is commendable in the things that it seeks to do. If government policy is merely to stop at this and to take no steps in the field of segregation of those sentenced under the legislation, and no steps in the field of treatment of barbiturate addicts, as is apparently going
Food and Drugs Act
to be done with narcotic addicts, then I think it is a failure. By this I do not mean that the bill itself is a failure, but there is failure on the part of the government to proceed fully in the direction of treatment and segregation, which is the thing that we want to get to.
If we leave the matter here, perhaps the minister will be able to clear up some of the doubts in my mind when he closes the debate, or perhaps we may have to engage in further questioning and discussion about the matter at the committee stage.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few brief words on this bill at this time. I am interested in its provisions. I shall have comments to make when we come to the various clauses. I should like to assure the minister that, as the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque) has said, we join with him in his efforts to provide a satisfactory form of regulation with regard to the traffic in controlled drugs, which as he said exists in communities where there is an underworld.
First of all, I should like to say-and I had hoped that the minister would say this-we are especially grateful to the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean for being almost single-handedly responsible for the introduction of this measure. It was the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean who three or four years ago first raised this question in the House of Commons. We all recall the derision that greeted his interrogations and his remarks when he referred to this problem of the goof ball.
Oftimes individual members of parliament may feel frustrated in their efforts. They may feel they are not given an opportunity to provide constructive contributions in our deliberations and decisions. However, this is a very good example of how effective an individual member of parliament can be if he puts forward consistently a case which he sincerely believes in. I know of no finer example of achievement in this regard than the results which we see here today in the introduction by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) on behalf of the government of a measure which has been necessitated by circumstances which were first effectively demonstrated in this house by the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean. I am sure I have every justification for extending to him our warmest thanks and our sincerest congratulations.
I have before me:
(Translation):
La Patrie du Dimanche of February 10, 1961-

Food and Drugs Act
(Text):
Here is a French newspaper published in Montreal. This headline appeared in its issue of February 10, 1961, on page 17:
(Translation):
The hon. member, who also is mayor of Outre-mont, provoked laughter in the house in 1958 when he spoke of goof balls.
(Text):
"The mayor of Outremont provoked laughter in the House of Commons in 1958 when he spoke of goof balls." The hon. gentleman is the one who can now sit in his seat and laugh because a problem to which he attached great importance has now been recognized, and I think necessarily so, by the minister responsible in the government of Canada for the regulation and the prevention of this particular abuse.
The minister has given us a useful outline. With the general statement he has made I think we would be in full agreement. I had at first wondered why the bill was brought forward in this particular form. I had wondered why the subject had not been included in the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, but I am satisfied that the explanation which the minister has given is one that meets the situation. He points out that the enforcement measures are the same, generally speaking, but I think there are some differences. If one will compare the enforcement provisions of the Food and Drugs Act one will find that there are some slight differences but basically, as the minister has said, the enforcement measures are the same. While this is so, the minister suggests, and I think rightly so, that since goof balls-and I prefer to use the phrase used in the bill, which is controlled drugs-are not narcotics, on that account they should be treated separately. He points out that the medical use of narcotics is different from that of controlled drugs. He indicates further that the medical profession is against the characterization of barbiturates as narcotics, and I think that the opinion of the medical profession in this regard is one that should be respected because the use of narcotics under legitimate circumstances and under the control of the skilled practitioner is altogether different from the uses which attend the employment of a barbiturate or a controlled drug.
The minister also points out that under the act dealing with narcotics the mere possession of a narcotic is a punishable offence whereas I note that in the bill, and I do not quarrel with this, the mere possession of a controlled drug is not necessarily an offence. The new section 33 (1) on page 2 of the bill deals with this aspect of the problem. That,

I think, is almost in itself a good reason for the particular and special form to which the minister has resorted in this legislation.
He points out that narcotics, unlike controlled drugs or barbiturates, are not normally kept in the home, that they are under the strictest supervision of the doctor and other agencies of the public authority. He indicates as well that barbiturates are transferable from one member of a family to another, from one individual to another, in spite of the fact that the person whom the barbiturate is first given acquires it as the result of a prescription.
I am sure we are satisfied beyond doubt from what the minister has said, and particularly from the facts that have been elicited from time to time in the house by the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean, as to the great abuse that has flowed in recent times from these kind of controlled drugs, especially, in large communities, where the extent of criminality is so often characteristic of the large urban centres on this continent. Undoubtedly the minister and his officers have given this matter very careful attention. I am sure he has acted after the closest examination of the best way to deal with this problem. I can understand very well what some of his difficulties have been because there is a fundamental difference between a narcotic and a controlled drug within the meaning of this legislation and one would not want to do injustices in legitimate situations although one is actuated, as the minister and his officials are, by the need to see to it that the greatest supervision exists not only with regard to the illicit use of narcotic drugs but with regards to the use of barbiturates or controlled drugs.
One could go over a list of many illustrations that have appeared in the press which I have in my possession and which show the extent of the degradation that has taken place recently, particularly in some of our larger centres, as a result of the clandestine use and later the open use of barbiturates by unconscionable individuals exercising influence in particular over some of our young people. This is a necessary measure at this stage and we will examine the bill clause by clause in the hope that we will enact a measure capable of arresting this problem to the extent that it is practicable and possible to do so. Once again I am grateful to the minister and the government for bringing this measure forward. I am sure I also express the gratitude and appreciation of all members of the house for the perception and persistent interest of the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the minister for bringing forward this legislation to

cope with this problem and at the same time I should also like to record my appreciation of the untiring efforts of the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque) to keep this problem before the house and to have some action taken. As I listened to the minister opening the debate two points came to my mind which I should like to put before him for his consideration when he replies.
We have recognized that a problem exists and we are attempting in this legislation to find a solution to the problem by the indirect method, that is, by eliminating the illegal traffic in the drugs involved. The first thought that came to my mind as I considered the matter was that the illicit trade did not begin with the problem. The problem started in some other way and the illicit trade grew out of the problem. As more and more young people became addicted the demand for drugs of this kind grew and the illicit trade grew out of that demand. It is true that we are perhaps going to be very successful in cutting off the illegal sources of supply but that does not automatically cut off the demand. The demand has been created and will be there, so we are now faced with two problems, I believe.
The first problem is, what are we going to do with those people who have become addicted and can no longer get the drugs to meet the demands of their addiction? Obviously they will need some sort of special treatment, and I am wondering whether the minister has given any thought to that part of the problem and whether any research has been carried out as to what kind of treatment is necessary and how it should be provided. The second thought that came to my mind was that this problem started in a very simple way with drugs that could be acquired in a legal manner and although we are attempting, and I think we will perhaps be very successful, to eliminate the illegal sources of supply and to make it more difficult to obtain these drugs from legal sources the problem will not be entirely removed. I think it is reasonable to assume that young people who have become accustomed to this kind of addiction will experiment with other drugs which perhaps can be obtained legally.
It was my impression that this problem started first with simple aspirin and coke. I have been told that, but I do not know how valid the statement is. There are many drugs that are available over the counter without a prescription which possibly could be used as substitutes for the drugs named in this bill.
One other thought which came to my mind was whether any research had been conducted 90205-6-354
Food and Drugs Act
with respect to drugs that might be obtainable without a prescription which could possibly be used as substitutes for the drugs which we are now seeking to control and to eliminate, and which are being supplied from illegal sources.


Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief comments on this bill. First of all, I should like to say that I agree entirely with the principle of this bill. I believe that in a number of centres across this country we have had a goof ball problem among our younger people which, if allowed to go uncontrolled, would not only reach the serious proportions it has reached at this particular time but would become much more serious in areas where the problem exists now and would also spread to a number of other areas.
I suppose that before the minister introduced this bill, most of us thought the use of these barbiturates could be controlled by adding these particular drugs to the narcotics act. The explanation the minister has given is one which I appreciate, and I think we can easily understand that this problem could be better handled and better solved by having a separate bill, as the minister has done. Over the years we have heard the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque) complaining about the use of goof balls in the area from which he comes as well as in other areas. It was quite evident he took a much more serious view of the problem at that time than many other people. As a result of his experience with the problem and because of his interest in young people, he persisted and we have before us today a bill which I hope will control the use of these drugs by all people, particularly by the young people.
It is felt that we shall be able to effectively control the use of these drugs by having control of importation, distribution and retail centres. It will be necessary for people in these three different branches of the drug business to keep the necessary records which the bill will demand of them. I hope that this, in some way, will control release of these drugs. I would hope too, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will receive examination in the committee when the different items will be examined, and I would hope that it would be given speedy passage through the house so that its effect will be felt across this country as soon as possible.


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


Jay Waldo Monteith: I shall be very brief

Food and Drugs Act
at this moment. I should like to say I am very pleased at the response of hon. members generally to the bill. As we go through the various clauses of the bill, I shall be happy to deal with the requests for information as they arise.
I would point out to the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque) that he said he was pleased to see these goof balls would now be taken out of the act. Actually, this is a separate section of the same act. Our own inspectors will continue to ensure compliance with the terms of the act, and this will be done in conjunction with the R.C.M.P. It is hoped that this bill will bring a stop to such instances as were mentioned by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) when he was talking about the article in the Vancouver Sun. I emphasize that this bill makes trafficking and possession for trafficking an offence, but does not make possession of the drug itself an offence. I do not believe there is much more I need to say at this moment, Mr. Speaker.
Before I resume my seat let me say I noticed that the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) asked a couple of questions concerning research. I would point out that it is felt at the moment that only these three groups of drugs listed in the schedule are the dangerous ones for this purpose. The regulations will provide that, as time goes on, if other types of drugs are found which should be under the same type of control, then this will be done.
As I say, I am very pleased indeed at the response of hon. members to the bill.


[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-Exports.
Paul Joseph James Martin: This clause, Mr. Chairman, of course incorporates, so far as my present question is concerned, the existing provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, together with the amendment that is provided for in line seven. The section of the act as it is, and as it is now amended, does not apply to exported products where certain conditions are complied with, namely the overprinting of the word "export".
Does the minister feel that we should be satisfied with the export of a product from Canada without requiring the same conditions in relation to that product when it is manufactured for consumption and sale in Canada?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, Mr. Chairman, all we are doing here is bringing in part III of the act. Under what will be section 30 of the act, as will be noted, the new IMr. Monteith (Perth).]
words are "other than a drug defined as a controlled drug by part III". The Food and Drugs Act is going to carry on in exactly the same way except that these controlled drugs are dealt with in a separate part. There is no change whatever in the Food and Drugs Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. That is what
1	said in putting my question. However, my question went further than that. Why do we not require with regard to export products the same rigorous standards that we require with regard to products that are manufactured for consumption in Canada?


Jay Waldo Monteith: We require that the exported article comply with the law of the country to which it is being exported. This may conflict with our law. In the case of controlled drugs this could be a leakage.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It could be a leakage? Is that what the minister said? I did not hear what the minister said.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There could be a leakage from the legal manufacturer to the illicit traffic if we did not have these companies under licence. We are licensing the manufacturer and the distributor in an effort to control the manufacture and the distribution of these substances so that we shall be in a position to know where the product goes, and so that we can keep control of it or of the records.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Will manufacturers be obliged to keep records of what they have and what they sell?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes.


Frank Howard: My question is only on a procedural point. I notice that clause 1 runs for a number of pages and that really clause
2	and clause 3 are relatively minor ones. In clause 1 there are six or seven separate sections that are proposed to be added. For the purpose of orderly discussion I wonder whether we might not proceed with discussion on the basis of the proposed sections contained within clause 1 rather than wander all over the field.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes. I should be very happy to adopt that suggestion.


Jacques Flynn: Is it agreed that we should proceed on clause 1 by calling each new section?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques Flynn: Shall section 30 in clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques Flynn: Shall section 31 in clause 1 carry?


Frank Howard: I am sorry that this bill was not introduced yesterday. I wonder whether the minister would mind relating to the committee the definition of "possession" as contained in the Criminal Code so that we shall know what it means in respect of this bill.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We are making the Criminal Code definition of "possession" applicable in this bill. This is the same definition as that in the narcotic drugs legislation. It is a rather lengthy description. According to the Criminal Code, "possession" is defined as follows:
3. (4) For the purposes of this act,
(a)	a person has anything in possession when he has it in his personal possession or knowingly
(i)	has it in the actual possession or custody of another person, or
(ii)	has it in any place, whether or not that place belongs to or is occupied by him, for the use or benefit of himself or of another person; and
(b)	where one of two or more persons, with the knowledge and consent of the rest has anything in his custody or possession it shall be deemed to be in the custody and possession of each and all of them.
It results in uniformity.


Frank Howard: Yes. I think perhaps the
minister said that this is also the definition used in the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. This answer clarifies the point I was getting at.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, section 31 of Bill No. C-99 gives the definition of "controlled drug". I will take the liberty to make a suggestion here.
We are dealing with a bill aiming to solve a problem that we think serious.
Last Saturday, I believe, the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Hicks) asked what is it that we are now calling controlled drugs, or commonly "goof balls"?
I hope the minister, in order to give this legislation all the effect we want it to have, will initiate in co-operation with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), an education compaign to make the public aware of this drug which constitutes a real problem.
I hope also that an R.C.M.P. officer will then be able to give the public all necessary information on the harmful effects of this drug.
I suggest that it is not enough merely to pass legislation; the public must be made aware of the dangers of the use of that drug.
So, I hope the minister will carry out this suggestion as soon as this bill is adopted, to organize television programs to emphasize the dangers of those drugs, as well as the control facilities provided by this legislation, and the cures.
90205-6-354J
Private Bills
I believe it is much easier to cure those who use these drugs than those who are addicted to ordinary drugs.
Mr. Chairman, I now close my remarks. I hope the minister will give them consideration.
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, to leave the chair in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-17, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Gundlock) I should like to thank all members of this house for their forbearance and for the privilege of moving the second reading of Bill No. S-17, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
The purpose of this bill is to authorize Canadian Pacific Railway Company to construct a branch line of railway off its Brocket southerly branch in the province of Alberta to a gas-processing plant being constructed by Shell Oil Company of Canada Limited. Parliamentary authority is necessary because the power of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada to authorize the construction of branch lines under the Railway Act, section 183, is limited to lines not exceeding six miles in length.
The length of this particular branch line is 10.8 miles, and it will start about 1.5 miles north of Drywood which is the present site of the British American Oil Company plant south and east of Pincher Creek, about 17 miles.
To those who are not familiar with the area, let me say that the new Shell plant which is contemplated and on which construction has started is approximately 14 miles south of Pincher Creek and eight to ten miles west of the present British American Oil Company plant. This British American Oil Company plant supplies the methane gas which to a large extent is transported by Trans-Canada Pipe Line to Ontario to warm Ontario homes. In other words, this is the area from which the gas going to Ontario, or a large part of it, originates. This new Shell Oil plant will also be processing various types of hydrocarbons, and for the benefit of those who are not altogether familiar with the petrochemical industry, allow me to

Private Bills
spend a moment or two dealing with the chemical products which are derived from natural gas. Let me say first of all that if you take the total gas produced in the province of Alberta, about 10 per cent is dry natural gas or methane. It comes out of the ground that way. Ninety per cent is wet natural gas and this has to go through a scrubbing plant and be processed. In that processing, methane is taken off, and it is methane which is put through the pipe line to Ontario. This is the gas which goes into our homes as fuel.
Then there is ethane, propane, butane and hydrogen sulphide, just to give hon. members some idea of the end-products which are derived from these gases. Take methane, for example. From methane are produced rubber additives, carbon black, nitrogen fertilizer, antifreeze, plastics, synthetic fibres such as dynel and orlon, explosives, soil conditioners and so on.
Let us look at some of the end-products of ethane. There is first of all, polyethylene plastic, so important to the building trade, synthetic fibres such as dacron, synthetic rubber and detergents, antifreeze and so on.
Now we come to propane. The end-products derived from propane include explosives such as t.n.t., synthetic detergents, films for cameras and for the motion picture industry, lacquers, and so forth. Turning now to butane we have synthetic rubber, nylon, oil additives, synthetic resins and so forth. Lastly, just to touch on some of the products derived from hydrogen sulphide may I say that this new Shell plant which is to be built will produce in the neighbourhood of 1,000 tons per day of sulphur. This is equivalent to about 17 carloads of 60 tons per car, or roughly a small 17-car trainload of sulphur a day. Iri addition, this plant will produce 350 tons of liquid gases which will be transported largely by pipe line. This petrochemical plant and the hydrocarbons which are produced there will provide a raw material source for over 10,000 end-products. I wanted to mention these few things about the petrochemical industry in the west to indicate the necessity for the construction of a railroad line to serve this particular plant. I might add that about 23 per cent of our sulphur requirements are produced in Canada. One petrochemical plant at Medicine Hat uses 135 tons of sulphur a day to make sulphuric acid and, finally, to produce fertilizers with an ammonium base.
This railroad spur line 10.8 miles long is needed to operate the Shell plant economically. Transportation by highway is not practicable because during the winter in that part of the country the snow is deep, and in the

spring when the frost is coming out of the ground there is a tendency for roads to heave. There would be a considerable loss of time in consequence and, in addition, any road which might be expected to stand up to the heavy traffic would be very expensive to construct and maintain. The railroad will help the C.P.R. to produce revenue and it will help the Shell Oil Company of Canada by providing transportation for its products and also in getting building material on to the site to build the plant. The Canadian Pacific Railroad has right of way options already completed. The Shell company has sufficient raw material to last approximately 50 years. Considerable employment will be provided by the building of this line, and it will be available as soon as this house can pass the present measure which is the green light needed for the company to go ahead with construction work.
I want to say one word about the urgency of getting this railroad under construction. There is nothing controversial about the bill, but it has been delayed and delayed by the procedures of this house. What is happening is that these people who have only a short period in the summer in which to construct this railroad are being denied the full opportunity to take advantage of the open season of the year during which construction can go forward. Delays in the house are holding it up.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: There were no delays.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I may say it is not the fault of the C.P.R. that this bill is delayed in reaching the floor of this house. Let me clarify that situation. The energy board which was set up by the parliament of Canada and which has done an excellent job in determining the export of gas had to go through all its processes of deciding whether or not the gas could be exported. This had to be done before the Shell oil company could decide to build a plant south of Pincher Creek. The Shell company had to obtain a decision from the energy board before they could set up plans for this $20 million plant south of Pincher Creek. How could the Canadian Pacific Railway, or any other group, come before this house making an application for the passage of a bill authorizing the building of a railway line in this respect until the Shell oil company had made its decision? If you follow my line of reasoning, you will see that the C.P.R. was held up by the decision of the Shell oil company and that the Shell oil company was held up by the decision of the national energy board. The national energy board, of course is an agent of the government of Canada and although I do not wish to

attach blame to anyone I certainly feel that neither the C.P.R. nor the Shell oil company is to blame for any delay.
All I am suggesting is that we have here a bill that is urgent, and which should be passed immediately, but which has been held up for three weeks to a month by the procedures of this house. Since this bill is not controversial, I hope that this house will deal with it expeditiously. If the project involved the construction of only six miles of line, construction could have proceeded under the authorization contained in section 183 of the Railway Act. All that is involved here is the construction of a 10.8 mile spur to be built by the Canadian Pacific Railway under the authorization of the board of transport commissioners. The construction of this line cannot begin until this bill receives third reading. I should hope that this house, with its usual sound judgment, will expedite the passage of this bill, which I am sure will be appreciated.


Walter George Pitman: Mr. Speaker, we in this group are very interested in this bill and can assure the member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt) that we have no desire whatever to hold it up.
I should like to thank the hon. member for Macleod for the information he gave this afternoon. It has been of particular value to those members who represent ridings in eastern Canada. We are always interested in receiving information in respect of the production of gas in the Alberta region, and the information given in this regard by that hon. member has certainly underlined the sense of urgency which he has indicated.
I was somewhat concerned regarding his meaning when he said that it was delayed by the procedure of this house. I understand the bill was introduced in the other place on April 27, and has progressed at a speed which I imagine is normal. Perhaps the hon. member for Macleod would indicate further what he meant by the delays he suggests have taken place.
The purpose of this bill is quite clear. It is simply to construct an 11 mile spur line from a C.P.R. spur line, which already exists, from a gas well property of the British American Oil Company to the Shell Oil Company. We are very interested in this project because it involves a railway line leading to a field of natural resuorce in this nation. As will be appreciated, we in this group are very interested in natural resources, and are very pleased that this line will run to a gas processing plant, and that this natural resource of Canada is to be processed in Canada by Canadians for Canadians. That is one of the reasons why we greet this particular bill with considerable enthusiasm.
Private Bills
We note that, unless this kind of transportation is provided, it is almost impossible to get these by-products to market. It is quite evident that road conditions in Alberta, during winter months, make highway transport impossible, and air transportation for this purpose is far too expensive. We sincerely hope this railway line will play an important part in the development of the province of Alberta.
We note also, especially after the remarks of the hon. member for Macleod, that there is a tremendous need for the by-products which this company will proceed to process as soon as the plant is built, and the railway spur constructed. It is our understanding that this company will eventually produce many thousands of tons of sulphur. We hope, moreover, that this will be a paying line.
We are about to take a new look at the whole spectrum of Canadian transportation, with special consideration regarding the national problem in respect of railway transportation. The suggestion has been put forward that railway transportation must begin to cut down, and we must concern ourselves only with trunk lines. I am sure all members of this group expect the railway companies in Canada to continue to build lines to the locations of national resources in this country, and that this will be one of the major concerns of the directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway, as it is of the directors of the Canadian National Railways. As long as this reaching out for resources continues, we can be assured that employment opportunities will continue to increase.
The fact that this bill has reached the floor of this house indicates the complexity of our economic system, in that even the Canadian Pacific Railway, a so-called private enterprise company, must bring its plans before this house for approval. We realize, however, that the resources of this nation are being marshalled in support of this railway line, and in support of all others.
The hon. member mentioned that employment would be created through the construction of this line. We must question this statement, however, because we noted from both the speech he made this afternoon, and the explanation given previously in respect of the bill, that employment will be provided by the construction of this line for only 25 individuals, which indicates to us the extent to which machinery is replacing manpower in the construction of projects such as railway lines. However, we hope that employment will result in yet another way, as a result of the processing plant being constructed, and through the long term transportation of these materials to areas where they will be of use to the citizens of Alberta and to the nation

Private Bills
as a whole. We hope this will provide employment in some measure, and a boost to the economic growth of our society.


Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up any extra time in this house, although I should like, by way of emphasis, to reiterate some of the things mentioned by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt).
The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman) suggested that the construction of this line would employ only 25 men. In this regard I should like to remind him that the construction of that line represents only one stage of the project. I understand one other stage of construction will employ 100 men, and when the whole project is in operation, many more men than that will be employed. As a matter of fact, the laying of the road is to be done by contract and will provide work for approximately 25 men, but the construction of the road itself will employ 100 men for approximately six months. Of course, an additional number of men will be employed by the Shell oil company.
By way of emphasis, I should also point out the great and immediate need of the nitro-chemical plant at Medicine Hat for sulphur in particular, in the production of a fertilizer with an ammonium base, as well as the immediate need in respect of those other things previously mentioned by the hon. member for Macleod. I suggest that everything that can be done to speed the passage of this bill authorizing the construction of this line should be done, particularly because of the very short season involved.
I do not have much experience in this house and certainly I am not greatly familiar with its proceedings, but I am sure there is a general feeling of co-operation in respect of the passage of this bill, for which I express my appreciation to all hon. members. I should like to join with other members in urging that this bill be dealt with, and put on its way, as quickly as possible, so that the construction of this line may commence at the earliest possible moment.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a word or two in regard to this bill. I am sure all hon. members appreciate very much the explanations given by the hon. members for Macleod (Mr. Kindt) and for Lethbridge (Mr. Gundlock) in respect of its purpose, and their emphasis regarding the need of speedily dealing with the bill. I hope I am incorrect in thinking that the hon. member for Macleod made reference, on at least one occasion, to delays caused by the proceedings of this house. If that hon.

member actually used those words, I hope he did not do so in a sense of criticism of this house itself.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: May I correct the statement which the hon. member has just made. What I had reference to in the matter of delays was the fact that private bills come up only once a week. They are dealt with for one hour once a week. I was not referring to any delays on the part of any group or any individuals in this house. I was referring to the order of business under which such a bill proceeds before it can become law.


Frank Howard: That is fine; I was sure that this is what was meant, Mr. Speaker. The bill was introduced in the house on May 5, having come over from the Senate. That was a Friday. On the following Tuesday, May 9, we dealt with a supply motion. There was a supply motion before the house which overrode the private members' hour from five to six, and it was not possible for the bill to come up at that time. This is the third private members' hour on a Tuesday that we have had since the particular bill was introduced, and there were other matters before it. I can appreciate, when only one hour is given to a discussion of those bills, that it is somewhat difficult to proceed with everything that hon. members wish to have proceeded with, and to do it within that one hour.
The request of the hon. member that we waive the rules, following second reading which require that such bills go automatically to a committee and then proceed in committee of the whole and following that give unanimous consent to third reading is a somewhat far reaching request. Perhaps it should not be done at this stage, but I think one should express objection because not much is known about the bill at the present time. I think we should express some concern about following this particular course with respect to a private bill dealing with a private company. We know the reason for the rule, Mr. Speaker. The rule which states that a private bill goes automatically to an appropriate committee is one which recognizes that private citizens who are not members of parliament and are not able to appear before parliament or before the committee of the whole, can go to one of the standing committees of the house and present their ideas to hon. members in a formal way. It would seem to me that to give consent out of hand, as it were, to waive the rules is something that would not be correct. I think it requires very careful examination. There is one way in which we might even help in that regard in getting the opinions of the railway officials themselves

and perhaps of the Shell oil company. At this time I am not saying that the hon. member for Macleod did not adequately perform his function as sponsor of the bill. I think he did a commendable job and gave a thorough explanation of what would occur once this bill was passed.
The bill was referred to the Senate standing committee on transport and communications. I assume that the railway officials appeared before that committee and answered questions, as is done on other occasions with respect to other bills. They perhaps answered questions which were in the minds of the members of the Senate when the bill was given second reading. Sometimes we in this house, Mr. Speaker, look to the proceedings of the other place and of the committees of the other place for explanations and information. In this instance we are prevented from doing that because no evidence was taken down and transcribed and printed by the standing committee of the other place on transport and communications which dealt with this particular bill. I am not saying this by way of criticism of the other place or of the committees of the other place; I am merely saying that normally we might look to the proceedings there and get some explanation and some answers to some of the questions that might be in our minds. But we are not able to do this because evidence was not taken down and transcribed in the committee of the other place.
There are one or two questions in my mind which the hon. member for Macleod may be able to clear up when he closes the debate. I believe I am correct in saying that he said that about 10 per cent of the gas was dry, and I gather from this that 90 per cent of the gas in that part of the province is considered to be wet gas. I do not know whether he was talking about the whole province. I understand that by this particular legislation the Shell company will be serviced by this proposed railway spur, and the company will be processing wet gas from that general area. In this wet gas there are large quantities of sulphur, propane, butane and the like. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that when we get into the field of propane and butane we have in mind another private bill dealing with a pipe line company which is before the committee at the present time. I do not want to enter into a discussion of it because it is another subject of debate. I merely say there is a similarity between the two in that one has to do with exporting certain products and this one, as I understand it, has to do with a rail line to a plant which will be processing these wet gases and producing some useable commodities in Canada rather than exporting raw material.
Private Bills
I understand that the plant mentioned by the hon. member for Macleod which is to be built will have a production capacity of 1,000 tons of sulphur a day. In 1956, when we did not have sufficient production facilities, apparently, we imported some 270,000 tons of sulphur. If this Shell plant, which is to be serviced by the proposed rail spur, should produce 1,000 tons a day and operate on a seven day week basis the full 12 months of the year its total annual production would be 365,000 tons, which is a bit more than the amount we imported into Canada in 1956, and a bit more than our present consumption, judging by what we imported in 1956. At that time we had an annual consumption of about 350,000 tons of sulphur. This plant which is apparently going to produce 1,000 tons a day, will be, I gather, the largest sulphur production plant in Canada. Apparently our past production in Canada was 23 per cent of our consumption but there is nothing with which to equate 1956.
I would hope that the Shell Oil company has some contracts or other companies have options for the purchase of sulphur. If we are going to process this wet gas and produce sulphur from it in the amount of 1,000 tons per day, which on a yearly basis is more than our annual consumption and far more than our current annual production, I would hope that the sulphur will be sold and used in Canada by other manufacturers rather than being exported in its raw state, as it were, from our country to other places for other purposes as happens with other commodities we produce.
When the hon. member for Macleod closes the debate on second reading I would appreciate it very much if he would clear up the point as to just what markets Shell Oil has. I realize that this matter is something apart from the bill before us in which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company seeks permission to build 10.8 miles of rail line, but the hon. member for Macleod mentioned the Shell Oil company, its prospective production and so on and if he has that information I think it would certainly be helpful to the house.
Along the same lines, I think it would be helpful if the hon. member could indicate what existing markets Shell Oil has for the other by-products, I believe they might be called, developed in the processing of the wet gas. He mentioned the propanes and butanes that could be developed. If he has the information, I should also like the hon. member to indicate where the market is that Shell Oil has for the gas that will be produced if in fact Shell Oil is going to be the distributing firm.

Private Bills
I think these are all important matters in the light of our ideas and concepts with regard to the development of industry in Canada and the using of our raw materials in Canada for Canadian production and consumption. Because I think everyone in the house feels the same way, I think it is important that we understand just what Shell Oil intends to do with these products once the C.P.R. has constructed the rail line to the plant and Shell Oil is able to ship out the products. What markets will Shell Oil have? I think this is a very important question and I should like to see it cleared up in as much detail as possible before we consider whether or not we should waive the rules and proceed with the other stages of the bill in the house without referring it to a standing committee.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the committee is by itself a very simple one in that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is merely asking for authority to build a railway line approximately 11 miles in length. A bill is necessary because of the provision in the Railway Act that the authority of parliament is required for the construction of any branch railway line more than six miles in length.
But the bill is an interesting one in that it appears to be an integral part of a development in the west, one that I think should commend itself to all hon. members. I was quite sympathetic to the hon. member in his request, as I understood him, that the house concur in moving the bill forward through all stages today and if he wishes to put that proposition to the house in a formal way at a later stage I for my part am quite agreeable to such a suggestion.
I took the trouble to try to inform myself as best I could with respect to the development that will be consequential upon the C.P.R. being granted authority to build this branch line and upon the completion of the line, and while this matter may not be strictly relevant to the discussion of whether or not the bill should be approved it certainly is interesting. We have here a recently discovered natural resource in this country where the proven reserves of gas are estimated to be sufficient to supply the needs of the company proposing to develop them for 50 years at the contemplated rate of development. We have the assurance that the company proposes to commence development immediately the railway line is built.
It seems to me that all in all this is exactly what is needed at this time when all hon. members are concerned about the necessity of developing our country, providing employment for our manpower and using our resources in such a way that we will terminate

the existing unemployment. Therefore this development is wholly desirable. I content myself simply by indicating concurrence in the bill on my own behalf and on behalf of those immediately around me.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the hon. member for Macleod speaks now he will close the debate.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members who have spoken to the bill for their sympathetic understanding of the situation in which we find ourselves. I was particularly interested in the questions asked by the hon. member for Skeena concerning wet gas and dry gas. I mentioned that 10 per cent of the gas in the province of Alberta generally was dry gas, but in the field south of Pincher Creek where the Shell plant is located, it is 100 per cent wet gas and the gas processed there will be wet gas.
As to the markets for sulphur, let me say that sulphur is exported to world markets through the bulk loading facilities at Vancouver to some extent. It is shipped to Italy and other countries of the world where it is one of the principal ingredients in the production of synthetic fibres. In other words, it is impossible to produce synthetic fibres without the use of sulphuric acid. A great deal of sulphur is shipped into the Canadian shield region of our north country where sulphuric acid is needed to separate certain minerals from the rock formation. It is also used, as I have mentioned, in the production of ammonium-base fertilizer at the plant at Medicine Hat. It is also shipped to other parts of the world where there are other fertilizer plants. It is used in the production of storage batteries.
We are dealing with an extremely complicated situation in that most of the various products to be shipped such as ethane, propane, butane and hydrogen sulphide, when in the form of liquid gases, are shipped by pipe line.
Now, these gases are a drug on the market. It is difficult to get rid of them. It is felt that there is a market in the United States for some. We have an abundant supply. In fact, we have such a supply of these particular by-products that it is impossible to utilize them in Canada for petrochemical purposes. In other words, if we were to set up petrochemical plants we would have an untold number of years ahead of us of utilization of these by-products. In addition, these by-products which 1 have mentioned, ethane, propane and butane as well as certain other hydrocarbons, can be obtained from the

petroleum industry. They can also be obtained from coal, and we have over seven per cent of the coal supply of the world in southwestern Alberta.
What I wish to emphasize is that these particular hydrocarbons are in surplus supply. They are usually conveyed to market by pipe line, and the Aurora pipe line was one of the means by which it was hoped a certain amount of them would be transported across the line. I am not going to get into a discussion of Aurora pipe line. I want to avoid that. But I do want to say, in so far as the market situation is concerned, that where there is such an abundant supply, the practice in the industry is to apply to the conservation board of the province of Alberta to have certain of the gases flared. We do not want that if we can possibly find markets. Let us therefore find markets and utilize these products.
In closing the debate, I should like to urge upon you the thought that there is a precedent for this particular bill. I should like to see it given passage here today. I have already impressed upon hon. members the urgency of moving the bill through the house as quickly as possible. The bill has been cleared by the Senate and we have a record of the evidence given there. I have tried to give hon. members every bit of detail. There is nothing to cover up, there is nothing to hide. The bill relates simply to the construction of 10.8 miles of a branch line off another branch line to allow this company to go ahead with its plans. There is no great, deep principle involved, simply common, ordinary horse sense in order to get this project under way and to get things moving in that part of the country.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, I understand that a few years ago the British-American Oil Company received consideration similar to that which I am going to request. I should like to move that, notwithstanding standing order 105, unanimous consent be given to referring this Bill No. S-17, to the committee of the whole.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will require unanimous consent before such a motion can be entertained. Standing order 105 requires that every private bill, when read a second time, be referred to one of the standing committees. This particular bill would be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
Standing order 102 reads:
No motion for the suspension or modification of any provision of part II of the standing orders applying to private bills or to petitions for private
Private Bills
bills shall be entertained by the house until after reference is made to the committee on standing orders, or to one of the committees charged with the consideration of private bills,-
There are, therefore, two standing orders standing in the way of the motion. However, as everyone knows, the house is master of its own procedure. If unanimous consent were given to the hon. member to move the appropriate motion, then the bill could be advanced.
The question is whether the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt) has unanimous consent of the house to move the suspension of the two standing orders in question in order to advance this bill to committee of the whole house.


Frank Howard: Before it is agreed, I think it should be clearly understood this is in no way to be considered as any sort of precedent of which advantage can be taken in future proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the hon. member is. consenting, subject to this caveat.
Is it agreed that the hon. member has. unanimous consent to move this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps an appropriate motion would be as follows:
Mr. Kindt, seconded by Mr. Gundlock, moves that the said bill be considered forthwith in committee of the whole house.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and the house went into, committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Line of railway authorized.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not wish to delay the passage of the bill. I listened with great interest to the eloquent appeal for the building of 11 miles of steel. I want to come back to the railroad now. Will this 11 miles of siding, as it is called, serve other shippers if it should happen that other natural resources are discovered or agricultural products are available for shipment? Will this railroad be a public utility, in other words? Or will it only be a siding? There is a difference between the two in so far as restrictions are concerned. Will there be any passenger service on this approximately 11 miles of railroad? Have easements been obtained and settled with all those persons whose land this railway crosses and have the crossings of rights of way been sanctioned by the board of transport commissioners?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: With regard to the last question, I understand that the crossings have been cleared with the municipalities and with the board of transport commissioners as well

Private Bills
as with the provincial highways department. In so far as the highway south of Pincher Creek is concerned, there is to be an overhead bridge and not a level crossing.
With reference to passenger service on the line, I may say it is only a spur line. I understand that there was a passenger train run down there on an excursion trip carrying a number of the officials of the B-A plant. Perhaps a similar use will be made of the railroad from time to time. I do not believe that passenger service up to Brocket would be a matter for consideration.
In so far as the public utility aspect is concerned, I can assure the hon. member after discussion with the Canadian Pacific Railway officials that if they can make a dollar out of transporting any products over that line they are going to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Time for completion.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the hon. member explain the reason for this clause? It says:
If the construction of the said line of railway is not commenced within a period of two years or is not completed and put in operation within a period of five years after the passing of this act, the powers of construction hereby conferred upon the company shall cease and be null and void as regards so much of the said line of railway as shall then remain uncompleted.
Why is that clause included? It seems rather unusual.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: That is the standard clause that is put in all bills of this type coming before parliament. While that clause is put in there, the only thing it amounts to is this. The C.P.R. has the intention of getting this railroad built this summer or before the snow flies this fall. But this is one of the clauses that are put in bills of this type, as will be seen by the hon. member if he looks at other bills. That is standard procedure.


Frank Howard: I understood the hon. member to say that this is the standard clause that goes into any bill of this nature for the building of a railway line. But is this so with regard to all lengths of line? Suppose the proposed railway line were intended to take 10 years to construct. Are the times different?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: It is possible that those drafting the bill might vary the time mentioned in this clause to fit the circumstances. But as I have said this is a 10.8 mile railroad spur line and it is to be built very soon. I checked with the board of transport commissioners on the point raised by the hon. member and the answer they gave me is what I have transmitted to the hon. member for Kootenay West.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: Now, by unanimous consent.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NATIONAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill S-16, an act to incorporate National Mortgage Corporation of Canada.-Mr. Morton.
Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenpori: Mr. Speaker, a number of hon. members have asked that they have the opportunity to discuss this bill and have indicated that they would like me to ask that it stand with the consent of the government so that we would have a full hour at the next period at which these bills come up for consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this item stand at the request of the government?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Agreed.
Order stands.



AURORA PIPE LINE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 16, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-2, to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company- Mr. Woolliams-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Frank Howard: This is one of those bills that you lose track of once in a while because other proceedings intervene. Questions are raised and some two or three weeks later you get an opportunity to see whether or not the particular questions have been answered. At an earlier stage in the discussion of this particular bill I raised a number of points which have not yet been clarified, to my mind. I think they should be clarified and explained and that adequate information should be given before we proceed further with this bill.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the ownership of this company and letters have been written by Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited officials about the ownership of this company and the distribution of the shares as between Canadian citizens and non-Canadian citizens. The question is what is Continental Oil's position with

respect to its ownership of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas. It will be recalled that Continental Oil is a United States company and that it holds, or at least did so at the time this matter was discussed earlier-there may have been some slight change since that time-67.77 per cent of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company. Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas submitted some information with respect to Canadian ownership which, if I recall it correctly, amounted to some 2.96 per cent; I refer to individual Canadian ownership in Hudson's Bay. What I should very much like to know is this. I should like to have some confirmation of it from Continental Oil or from someone who can obtain the information from them or from Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company. Has any information been given to that company by its parent owner? As to Continental Oil which now owns 67.77 per cent of Hudson's Bay which owns Aurora Pipe Line Company which is seeking permission to build this pipe line under the bill, is it the intention of Continental Oil to dispose of its ownership of these shares or its percentage of shares in Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company? If we can get some information with regard to that matter, I think it may help a great deal in resolving this question of foreign ownership of a company which will own Aurora or Canadian ownership.


Jacques Flynn: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that it is six o'clock.


Frank Howard: So soon?
Progress reported.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-99, to amend the Food and Drugs Act-Mr. Monteith (Perth)-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7.30 p.m.
On clause 1-Exports.
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister what his reaction is to the suggestion that in section 31(c) after the word "import" should be added-I am suggesting for the purpose of argument-the word "export".


John Andrew W. Drysdale: While the minister is considering that point I thought he might wish
Food and Drugs Act
to examine at the same time the relevant position of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act which deals in great detail with the definition of traffic and trafficking. I was wondering why that definition was not incorporated into the Food and Drugs Act because as the hon. member for Essex East has pointed out, the word "export" has been omitted from this clause. I presume that is because these barbiturates are not manufactured in Canada at the present time. However, I think we might reach the stage where they could be manufactured here. I also was wondering why the word "distribution" which is also contained in the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act was not included. I thought the very wide definition of traffic and trafficking would be invaluable, besides presenting a degree of legislative uniformity.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not think I would have any objection to the word "export" being added there, but I do not believe we need go beyond that at this stage, because this is a new clause dealing with a product which is not a narcotic. A narcotic is a different substance. Under the narcotics act possession is, of course, an offence, whereas it is not an offence under section 3 of the Food and Drugs Act covering so-called goof balls or controlled drugs. The present definition would seem to me to meet the situation and I do not think we need go beyond it. I have not got the definition provided in the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act before me with respect to trafficking, but I feel that this one will suffice.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: The definition in the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act reads:
Traffic or trafficking means the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, giving, administering, transportation, delivery or distribution by any person of a drug or any substance represented or held out by such person to be a drug, or the making of any offer in respect thereof, but does not include
(i)	the importation or exportation of any drug by or on behalf of any person who has a licence therefor under section 3, or
(ii)	the manufacture, sale, giving, administering, transportation, delivery or distribution of a drug, or the making of any offer in respect thereof, by or on behalf of any person who has a licence therefor under section 3, or by or on behalf of a physician, dentist, veterinary surgeon or retail druggist for a medicinal purpose.
I should think the delivery aspect is one of great importance and I agree with the hon. member for Essex East that the word "export" should be included in the section.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think the hon. member has been looking at the old act. There was a new bill introduced today entitled "an act to provide for the control of narcotic drugs". I think if the hon. member examines that he will find that the definition

Food and Drugs Act
is more or less that which is used in the proposed new act. As far as the inclusion of the word "export" is concerned, there is no reason why this should not be done. The reason it is included in the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act is because of the international consequences which might arise. At the moment this international situation has not arisen as far as controlled drugs are concerned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister move accordingly?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I will ask my colleague the Solicitor General to move that the word "export" be added after the word "sell" ini line 21.


William Joseph Browne: I so move.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I now have Bill No. C-100 before me. I did not have it when I made my earlier remarks. There, the definition of "traffic" reads:
To manufacture, sell, give, administer, transport, deliver or distribute.
I do not believe the word "distribute" is included in the definition we are at present considering. My only desire, Mr. Chairman, is to reflect the concern we feel in British Columbia where the narcotics problem is an extremely serious one. I wish to make sure that all the loopholes in the act are blocked.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I certainly appreciate the hon. member's concern in this respect, and know he is fully aware of the situation in British Columbia. Perhaps I should give him the definition of the word "sell", as it appears in the Food and Drugs Act, of which this is a part. The word "sell" is described there as including "sell, offer for sale, expose for sale, be in possession for sale, and distribute."


Paul Joseph James Martin: That covers it.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McGee):: Is it
the committee's wish that I now put the proposed amendment to the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Charles McGee: The
hon. member for St. John's West moves:
That section 31 (c) of clause 1 of Bill No. C-99 be amended by inserting after the word "sell'' in line 21, the word "export".
Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frank Charles McGee: Is section 32 of clause 1 agreed to?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise two points in respect of this section,

one in the form of a question, and the other as an expression of opinion. I understand that the ten years' sentence provided upon conviction on indictment is not an automatic sentence?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Oh, no, that is the maximum sentence.


Frank Howard: I understand in addition to a jail sentence there can be a fine?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The Criminal Code provides that it is within the court's discretion to provide both a term of imprisonment and a fine.


Frank Howard: The other point I wish to raise has to do with a program to be carried out in respect of Bill No. C-100, a copy of which I have not as yet been able to obtain. I understand that the program, as provided by that bill, has regard to the treatment and segregation of addicts and traffickers in narcotic drugs. I should like to suggest at this time, while we are dealing with this bill in respect of the addiction and trafficking in barbiturates, that a similar approach be taken to individuals convicted under the law, as it will be when this bill becomes legislation. It is my understanding that an individual can become addicted to barbiturates and suffer the same withdrawal symptoms, with the same physical and mental state, as individuals who are addicted to opium and heroin. If that is the case, it seems to me that similar steps should be taken to ensure that individuals who are addicted to this controlled class of drugs are also subjected to the same treatment and segregation program that is proposed to be provided in respect of those individuals addicted to opium and heroin, and their derivatives. I wonder whether the minister could indicate to this committee whether a similar program is anticipated under the provisions of this bill?


Jay Waldo Monteith: There is no provision for specific treatment provided under this bill. The hon. member is entirely right in that respect. This is a new venture and we do not feel there is the need for specific separated treatment in this regard. It is my understanding that the addiction involved in respect of these controlled drugs is not of the same type or degree as in the case of opium or heroin. It has not been felt at this stage that we should provide such specific treatment.
As the hon. member is no doubt aware, there is a new bill-I refer to Bill No. C-100 -in respect of narcotic control, and I think we are heartily in accord with the treatment steps in it. However, in regard to the bill presently before the committee, I feel we

should acquire some experience in this regard, so that we will then have a better appreciation of what is required before taking that step.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, this aspect of the problem is of great interest. I had a thought similar to that of the hon. member for Skeena, but suspected the situation might be as the minister has indicated. The minister should not misunderstand me. This is a highly technical aspect of the problem. The minister has at his disposal very well informed professional individuals. I would be very interested in knowing if it is their judgment that the degree of addiction is, as he said, not the same, and that there is no experience which suggests that victims of controlled drugs can be treated in the way in which it is proposed to treat drug addicts, in institutions like the one at Lexington, Kentucky. Is the minister in a position to say whether in Lexington they do or do not treat victims of addiction to controlled drugs, or are only narcotic addicts being treated there? I have the impression there has been a change in that regard, and that the officials of that institution are now attempting to treat, in an experimental way, individuals who are addicted to these so-called controlled drugs. If that is the situation, and as we are about to embark upon a different experimental measure, seeking to provide rehabilitation through detention and hospitalization, it seems to me that, if what is being attempted in Lexington is of any value, we ought to do the same.
Am I right in saying that in California, in the last year or so, there has been created a new institution in an attempt to deal with addicts to controlled drugs, or barbiturates? I am not sure about that suggestion, but it seems that I have read something quite recently in that regard. However, I shall be guided by the minister's final statement on this matter, and I do think the point raised by the hon. member for Skeena is one that we should explore.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one or two comments in regard to this particular section, dealing with the trafficking of barbiturates, which I consider is perhaps the most nefarious aspect of the whole problem of the illegal use of narcotics. It is my understanding that the trafficker is invariably an individual who does not use the drug himself, but passes it on to other people. It is also my understanding that there is a tendency for younger people to experiment with the use of these barbiturates and narcotic drugs.
The thing that concerns me about this particular clause is the punishment. On summary conviction the term of imprisonment
Food and Drugs Act
is 18 months. Under indictment the term of imprisonment may be 10 years. Under the present Opium and Narcotic Drug Act imprisonment is for a term not exceeding 14 years for trafficking, and there is also a provision for whipping. Under the new Bill No. C-100 a person who is guilty of trafficking is liable to be imprisoned for life. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we should give very serious consideration to incorporating this more extensive term in this particular clause because I think the experience of the law enforcing agencies has been that the stiffer the term the more likelihood there is that the people who are in this particular business will get out of it.
I think this has been the experience in the United States, particularly with Mafia, which was extremely well organized in the narcotic aspect of the business. As the sentences toughened up this very well organized group tended to get out of the business. With these goof balls which can be added to soft drinks as well as alcohol to produce the effect desired I think there is perhaps even a more serious situation than we have in narcotics. Could the minister indicate the reasoning behind the length of the sentence indicated in this legislation and would he consider making it uniform with the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act and provide imprisonment for life?


Frank Charles McGee: Before the minister replies I wonder whether the committee would give unanimous consent to improving a slight discrepancy or possibly making an improvement in the wording of the amendment to section 31, which was carried a short time ago? The effect of the amendment was to add to paragraph (c) the word "export" following the word "sell". This would mean that the paragraph would then read:
(c) "traffic" means to manufacture, sell, export, import into Canada-
And so on. The suggestion that I am offering to the committee is that we might add the words "from, or" after the word "export". The paragraph would then read:
(c) "traffic" means to manufacture, sell, export from, or import into Canada, transport or deliver, otherwise-
And so on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Agreed.


Frank Charles McGee: May
I have the permission of the hon. member for St. John's West to add these words to the amendment?


William Joseph Browne: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for pointing it out.

Food and Drugs Act


Frank Charles McGee: Is it
unanimously agreed that the amendment which has been carried to section 31 shall have the words "from, or" added to it?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Charles McGee: The
paragraph will now read:
(c) "traffic" means to manufacture, sell, export from, or import into Canada, transport or deliver, otherwise than under the authority of this part or the regulations.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member for Essex East mentioned possible experiments conducted at Lexington. This is so, so far as barbiturates are concerned. They are individual experiments.
While we are not actually discussing Bill No. C-100, it is realized that in that bill there is provision for special treatment. We feel that this is a new venture, a new step, and that in the case of barbiturates or controlled drugs the situation is not as serious at the moment. We certainly will continue to study it, and if there is a need in the future to provide specific treatment, a specialized sort of treatment, we shall certainly be very pleased to act.
I should like to point out that actually we are dealing with and making punishable only trafficking and possession for the purposes of trafficking. It is not actually possession that we are dealing with; it is just those two things, trafficking or possession for trafficking purposes. This is to quite a degree at the moment being done on the advice of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their advice, of course, is given after having had considerable experience and making quite a study of the matter over the last several months.
The hon. member for Essex East also mentioned something that was going on in California. I am afraid that at the moment I am unaware of what this might be, but I would mention that in California they have had an experiment concerning free drugs to addicts.
With respect to the comments of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, here again I would point out that we are acting on the advice of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We do not feel that those penalties should be as severe as they are under the new suggested narcotic control act. First of all, we do not believe for a moment that the courts would impose the type of sentence included in Bill No. C-100 in cases under this particular bill. We realize that it is a serious problem. We are taking a new step to try to deal with it and we hope we can

deal with it. If further steps have to be taken then, of course, we shall take them.


Frank Howard: Before I proceed with my main remarks, may I ask the minister whether the drug known as marijuana is included in the schedule to the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, it is.


Frank Howard: I think it will be discovered, or it is probably well known in medical circles anyway, that marijuana is not an addictive drug. It certainly produces a euphoric effect similar to other narcotic drugs. It is an addictive one as we think of the other narcotic drugs as being addictive, and yet a person convicted under the other act for possession, for argument's sake, of marijuana would be liable to be sentenced to a term and the like as would a person convicted for possession of morphine. I just merely say this in opposition, as it were, to the reasoning of the minister with respect to barbiturate addicts when he said that this is not as serious as a person being addicted to other narcotic drugs. As far as marijuana is concerned, it could be far more serious and far more damaging to the individual, according to medical opinion.
Another point which must be considered is that one of the ways in which younger people come in contact with narcotic drugs- and a similar situation will develop with respect to barbiturates or controlled drugs- is that a younger person who has no previous association with narcotics or narcotic addiction may be sentenced for some other offence to a penitentiary or a provincial jail. While there, because of the lack of segregation, he comes into contact with narcotic addicts. The general day to day discussion among narcotic addicts in penitentiary is pointed toward that day when they can get out and get down town and get their first fix, as they call it, or a shot of morphine, or whatever they can get. With many narcotic addicts their sole thought is to get out of prison in order to make use of narcotics again. The process of day-to-day talk and discussion does raise the idea in the minds of younger people that there must be something delightful about the use of narcotics to make these addicts so enamoured of them that this is the first thing they are going to do when they get out. From association in prison with addicts or people who know about narcotics younger people do have a tendency to some extent to try narcotics themselves when they get out of prison if they circulate in the same walk of life.
The same thing will be true with respect to association with barbituric addicts by younger people who are not addicts. Even

though this is initial legislation in this field, unless the minister is willing at this time to place barbituric addicts or traffickers in the same class as narcotic addicts so far as treatment and segregation are concerned, I am very much afraid that we will have a growing problem and a few years from now the minister or another minister will come back again and say that something has got to be done with regard to the treatment of persons using barbiturates. I am quite sure that is what is going to occur.
To my mind it would be much better to have some foresight in regard to the treatment of barbituric addicts and to establish facilities so that individuals can be segregated and treated. The type of treatment may vary. Quite frankly, I think all the psychiatrists in the world will not be of much help to a narcotic addict if the addict desires to use narcotics unless he may be unhappy with his present situation and realizes it is resulting in more difficulty for him than happiness. While we are at the job of establishing machinery for the treatment of narcotic addiction I think we should also establish facilities at the same time for the treatment of barbituric addicts. It may be that the type of treatment will be different and that medical treatment of some kind will be of advantage. It may be some other form of treatment, but at least we should establish facilities for the treatment of barbituric addicts in such a way that they will be segregated from prison inmates convicted of other crimes.
The minister says that he wants to try out this legislation to see how it works but with all due respect I think he will agree without hesitation that it is far better to have some machinery in existence that can be used to overcome a problem which may arise with regard to barbituric addicts than it is to wait until the problem does arise and then say that something must be done after the problem has become greater than it is now.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I might say a few words in reply to the statements by the hon. member for Skeena. First of all, while marijuana is in the schedule of the new narcotic control legislation it is regarded internationally as a narcotic and the controlled drugs with which we are dealing in this bill are not. I think it might be pointed out that in our humble opinion this is the most forward step we know of that has been taken in this respect in any country.
In this bill we are not dealing with addicts who use barbiturates or amphetamines or other controlled drugs. We are dealing primarily with the trafficker and those found in possession for trafficking purposes. On the basis of the best advice we have been able
Food and Drugs Act
to obtain it is our feeling that we should develop the control of these drugs and licence all those who handle them with a view to stopping the illicit trade in them. We are also certainly far from convinced that this problem is as serious as narcotic addiction. We are convinced it is not as serious. I am afraid I cannot go along with the hon. member at this stage. After all, narcotic addiction and its serious consequences have been well known for many, many years and the amendment being brought forward in Bill No. C-100 represents actually the first time that this type of approach has been taken toward treatment. In our humble estimation barbiturates do not represent as serious a problem and consequently I am afraid we will have to leave what the hon. member has suggested for another time.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, the new section 32 covers two types of infractions. The first is trafficking and the second is possession for the purpose of trafficking. If that is so, it means that if a man is caught by the police in possession of a controlled drug such a case is not covered under the new section 32. Am I right in my assumption?


Jay Waldo Monteith: If a man is in possession-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I mean sole possession without any idea of trafficking.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Oh, no, it is not covered. We are not after the users of barbiturates or amphetamines at the moment. These are household drugs in every sense of the word and in most houses practically every medicine cabinet contains some drug of this type. We are not dealing with these people. What we are after is the trafficker in controlled drugs or those found guilty of possession for purposes of trafficking.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: If that is so, would the minister not agree that in the enforcement of the narcotics act with regard to the use of heroin, for example, we are in the main controlling the users because it is not very often we are able to catch the trafficker. If the question of controlled drugs is serious enough to warrant an amendment to the Food and Drugs Act, I think there should be a clause in the bill to cover the person who is in possession even if such possession were only punished by a nominal fine. I think that enforcement would be much easier if that were done.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. member. As I mentioned earlier, these drugs are in common everyday

Food and Drugs Act
use on doctor's prescriptions in practically every household. For argument's sake, let us say that an epileptic is out on the street and has a drug of this type in his pocket which he finds it necessary to use upon certain occasions. We do not feel that at this stage we can possibly include straight possession as an offence under the bill. If we can charge a man with possession for trafficking that, of course, is a very different matter. It is the trafficker we are after.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister to look at subsection 1 of the new section 32. Surely that is a rather anomalous situation. The section provides that no person shall traffic in a controlled drug and "controlled drug" is defined in section 31. Then subsection 1 of section 32 goes on to say, so far as trafficking is concerned:
-or any substance represented or held out by him to be a controlled drug.
It, in fact, might not be a controlled drug. Let us assume a person is selling aspirin. He says, this is a controlled drug. If he were brought to trial his only offence would have been the statement he made that this was a controlled drug. In fact, it is not a controlled drug. How then could he be found guilty of trafficking in something which is not a controlled drug, such as aspirin or a bottle of Coca-Cola? By themselves, they are not controlled drugs.
This section of the bill certainly contains a provision that would not stand up before any court. If the person were trafficking in a controlled drug he could be found guilty. If the evidence shows it is not a controlled drug, you cannot ask for a conviction.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, this phrase, "any substance represented or held out by him to be a controlled drug", may require a word of explanation. In view of the fact that this offence involves a criminal underworld transaction, it is necessary that undercover activities be employed to reveal the source of the trafficking. This provision is also contained in the narcotics legislation. It is not to be expected that honesty and fair dealing will prevail in illicit underworld trafficking. Someone may be selling sugar, but if he represents it to be a controlled drug, we feel he is part of the underworld and should be charged as such.


Romuald Bourque: I may say that we are dealing now with a well organized group of traffickers. I point out to the minister, for instance, that the head traffickers will call up a drug store, or perhaps even 12 drug stores, and order 100 aspirin tablets from each drug store, while ordering 100 tranquilizers from 12 other stores. He says, in the first place,

deliver these to me at 45 Monterey street, apartment 25. He goes to the doorway of apartment 25 and waits in the entrance hall. When the boy brings the tablets, this man meets him at the door. He does not live there. He takes the 100 aspirin tablets and pays the 98 cents or $1 to the messenger. He then gets in his car and delivers the tablets to another pusher. You cannot catch him because he moves on to another place and does the same thing. He may do this 12 or 15 times in one evening. You can never catch him with the goods because he has only 100 aspirin tablets or 100 tranquilizers, and he passes them on to another fellow. This fellow goes on and distributes these pills. How are you ever going to catch the trafficker who handles goods in that way? He never has 200 pills of any kind at one time.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not quite understand, Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member is getting at. We are not dealing with aspirin tablets, we are dealing with the drugs outlined in the schedule which are dangerous drugs and which sometimes lead to tragic results. I do not know to what he is referring when he says that one man goes here or there with 100 aspirin tablets.
We do intend now to have all those who handle these three controlled drugs keep records and have them available for inspection. Then we may, upon inspection, determine whether or not there has been any illicit trafficking.


Romuald Bourque: I take it the minister's studies have not gone far enough because I am telling him now what occurs. Anyone knows that you do not need to make these drugs into capsules. All you need to do is mix the two together and you have a goof ball. A goof ball may lead to murder or any other offence if it contaminates any young person. These goof balls enable people to lose all sense of responsibility. If the procedure I have outlined is repeated 12 times, you could never convict a person who dealt with these drugs because he never buys all the products at the same time. If you arrest him you will find him with 100 aspirin tablets. You cannot charge a man for having 100 aspirin tablets. However, if he repeats the transaction 12 or 15 times in one day, he has accumulated enough ingredients to make 1,000 goof balls. You cannot convict him because you never find him with the goods, but only with ordinary drugs.


Jay Waldo Monteith: First of all, may I say I am sure the hon. member realizes that tranquilizers are obtained by prescription. You cannot go into a drug store today and buy tranquilizers without a prescription. I do not

want to belittle the problem. The R.C.M.P. certainly are worried about catching traffickers, and they are thinking of this problem of the addict.
I should like to reiterate what I said earlier, that tranquilizers are not the easiest thing to obtain because they are obtained on prescription.


Leon David Crestohl: When I drew the minister's attention to subsection 1, I did so in an effort to close an escape hatch. If the section were to provide that anyone found in possession of a controlled drug or ingredients which could be converted into a controlled drug, it would be much more effective than saying "any substance represented or held out to be a controlled drug". What trafficker is going to say, I am selling you aspirin or tranquilizers which, in themselves, are not controlled drugs but which I tell you are controlled drugs. You cannot convict him unless you have evidence that he represented or held them out to be controlled drugs. No trafficker is going to be so stupid as to admit that what he is selling is not a controlled drug but that he represents it to be a controlled drug.
I therefore, draw the minister's attention to the fact that this clause provides an excellent avenue of escape for anyone who is trafficking in ingredients which could be part of a goof ball, and that such language would be much more effective if it were to say a man could be found guilty if he were in possession of ingredients which could be converted into a controlled drug. I would put it this way. If I were defence counsel I would have a much more difficult time having a man acquitted if he were charged with being in possession of ingredients which could be part of a. controlled drug than attempting to prove that what he was selling was not a controlled drug but that he held it out to be a controlled drug. This would be a fairly easy avenue of escape for defence counsel.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think I understand what the hon. member is trying to get at. He said that any substance could be represented or held out by him to be a controlled drug. As we see this situation, the action will involve underworld characters or they would not be representing themselves to be a pusher or a trafficker, whatever they are called. As a consequence, if he sells something, completes a transaction with a buyer and is found to do this and is charged, he can be charged and found guilty even though the article he has sold is not an actual controlled drug but only was represented by him to be so. In other words, no buyer would buy a capsule, or however these things come, from
Food and Drugs Act
a trafficker unless it had been represented by the trafficker to be a controlled drug. That is only sensible to me.


Leon David Crestohl: It would be a straight misrepresentation.


Frank Howard: I realize that this is perhaps a bit out of order, although I think there is a connection and we have made reference to it previously. In the schedule to Bill No. C-100 there are some 90 substances which I understand fall into a prohibited class and are classified as narcotics. Can the minister tell us how many of these are not addictive?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am afraid that I cannot get into a detailed discussion of Bill No. C-100. That is another bill. In the schedule to Bill C-99 we have three drugs which we are now calling controlled drugs for the purposes of this bill. There are these three, as I have indicated. Incidentally, I presume we would be coming to that section of the bill later on. However, there are these three particular drugs and the salts and derivatives of them. For instance, I have a list of several things that might be considered to be in the barbiturate group. There is verinol, nytol, luminol.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are they in the narcotic drug act?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No; these are barbiturates.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Skeena is asking about those 100 substances that are in the narcotic drug act and that might be in the category of marijuana.


Frank Howard: Or having the same effect; that is, being classified as non-addictive.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am told that under Bill C-100, to provide for the control of the narcotic drug act these are synthetic drugs which can only be named as such. The three in the schedule to Bill No. C-99 have many derivatives and salts from these family groups. As I say, there are many trade names which different companies call them in the barbiturate group. Different companies call their products by different names. Ciba has a product in the barbiturate group. There is nembutal for Abbott Laboratories, seconal for Eli Lilly and Company, and so on. These are trade names primarily. There are only these three family groups and then there are the salts and derivatives.


Frank Howard: Perhaps I should ask the question again. How many of the approximately 90 drugs-and I use the round figure- listed in the schedule to Bill No. C-100 are of the type of drugs that fall into the same

Food and Drugs Act
class as marijuana which I said was nonaddictive and as to which, as the minister said, "yes, even though it is non-addictive it is internationally known"? How many of these are considered to be non-addictive type of drugs similar to marijuana?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Actually I think we are quite out of order because we are discussing another bill. However, I should like to point out that all the items on the schedule to Bill No. C-100 are under international control or jurisdiction.


Frank Charles McGee: Shall
section 32 carry?


Frank Howard: Before it carries may I say this. It seems strange to me-and I am thinking about the argument of the minister- that it is not necessary to engage in or establish any treatment facilities and the like because these controlled drugs under Bill No. C-99 are not considered to be as serious, yet they are serious enough that we are thinking in terms of a 10 year sentence plus a fine and on failure to pay the fine perhaps another five years maximum. We are therefore thinking in terms of a maximum 15 years in prison for a person trafficking in what is considered to be a drug which is not very serious. In his remarks the minister also made reference to the R.C.M.P. being worried about this matter and said that these are dangerous drugs with tragic results and so on. It seems to me that the minister's comments and expressions and the remedies sought in the bill do not equate with his argument that it is not a serious drug and (hat it is not a serious matter.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I presume that is a matter of opinion. I tried to explain our position on this matter earlier. We feel that we are going far enough in this bill. As I said earlier, this is the most forward looking legislation, of this type, of any country in the world to our knowledge. We think it is a step in the right direction. If, of course, as time goes on, we find that further steps must be taken we shall be very happy to consider them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have listened to this discussion between the hon. member for Skeena and the Minister of National Health and Welfare with sympathetic interest. From the point of view of logic, I think that what has been said by the hon. member for Skeena is incontestable. It may be that the minister has not fully understood the point of view expressed by the hon. member for Skeena and on that account there has been this malentente. Perhaps the misunderstanding is not only on the side of the minister, because the minister has something on his side
[Mr. Howard.)
in that these treatment centres for addicts have not been proven to be wholly without their defects.


Frank Howard: It is not my assumption.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I said that the assumption that they have proven to be fully successful is quite erroneous. They are still very much in the experimental stage. The difficulties that attend the administration of just one-I refer to the one in Lexington- are so great, I am sure, as to have caused the greatest consideration before adopting them in this country. Yet I think adopting the technique and the experiment is well worth while because it is only by trying that one really ascertains whether or not the experiment is valuable. Undoubtedly in many instances constructive results flow. But, it would seem to me that the minister is on sound ground in this sense in saying that since there is some doubt about the all inclusive character of the experiment that is resorted to for the treatment of drug addicts, and as this is a pioneer measure, one should not be expected to do something which is not going to yield, according to the best human standards, substantial and desirable results. I think the way to answer that question would be for the minister to explain to the committee, and the answer is certainly not clear to me, what is the result of treatment in the case of an addict who suffers from the use of controlled drugs. We have a general idea of what is the result in terms of effect in the case of those who suffer from the use of drugs. But what kind of treatment can be provided to a person who is a victim of a barbiturate? Is it not something which is in control of the physician? Is it not something that has the same deep habit formation quality? If the minister can give us some definite information in this regard, I think he might go a long way in meeting the concern of the hon. member for Skeena. Since this is a technical problem, I hope the minister will not misunderstand me if I say I wonder why he does not have sitting at the table in front of him in addition to eminent counsel, those in his department who have special technical knowledge in this matter.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Before the minister answers perhaps I might supplement some of the observations which have been made by the hon. member for Essex East. On quickly looking over the bill, there appears to be no provision regarding a person who is a barbiturate user and there does not appear to be any consideration given to whether or not a person engaged in trafficking is also a user. The situation often arises in narcotic trafficking where a person doing the trafficking is himself

a user. I was concerned as to whether this indicates a view that barbiturate addiction is not too serious a practice. In the new measure to control narcotic drugs provision is made for treatment and I think we have for the first time recognized the problem involved in the use of narcotics. Even under the old act, as I understand it, the key question was whether a person was in possession of drugs or trafficking in them. There was nothing wrong with being a person who used a particular drug. I was wondering if the minister could comment on this point.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am very happy to comment on all these things to the extent to which I am capable of doing so. I might mention however, with all due respect, that I think you are being lenient, Mr. Chairman, in that we seem to be discussing Bill No. C-100 every bit as much as Bill No. C-99. In this bill we are dealing with traffickers or those found in possession for the purpose of trafficking in controlled drugs.
I am happy to try to answer some of the questions which have been put to me such as those concerning the treatment of barbiturate addicts. We are informed-indeed, we are convinced-that withdrawal from any addiction there may be to those controlled drugs is not as difficult as is withdrawal, for example, from addiction to heroin. We do not feel that these controlled drugs have the same habit forming quality as narcotics. Frankly, in this present legislation we are after the trafficker; we are not legislating against those found in possession at all, except traffickers. It may develop that there is some loophole in this measure, but I should like to reiterate the statement I made earlier, twice, I think, this evening, to the effect that we feel this is the most forward looking legislation of any country in the world in this particular field. It is the first time to our knowledge that this step has been taken in any country. We feel that we are taking the correct step. We do not feel that treatment at the moment is as necessary as it is under the narcotics legislation. This is not a treatment measure. We are simply after those who traffic in these particular controlled drugs.


Romuald Bourque: I am sure the minister is well intentioned but evidently he has not travelled "the main" where the flotsam and jetsam of the world can be found.
I have here a copy of the Montreal Star dated May 13, 1961. The heading reads: "Child Court Judge Says Ban 'Main' ". It reads in part:
"I hope the city passes an ordinance forbidding children from frequenting the Main," Judge
Food and Drugs Act
Penverne said yesterday as he sent Eugene Servant, 47, to penitentiary for selling goof balls to a child.
Everyone knows that in Montreal anybody, man, woman or child can go on the Main and purchase goof balls at practically every door. I have a clipping here from the Montreal Star of Saturday, April 22 headed: "Criminal Code Changes Sought-City Acts to Stem Goof Ball Scourge". Here is one from the same paper of March 28: "Warning Given Youth Centre-Goof Ball Menace Stressed". The report goes on to stress the growing menace of the goof ball. Here is another item from the Montreal Star of Friday, March 10, 1961: "Dr. Roussel Reports, 'Goof Balls' Blamed for Sharp Increase in Violent Crimes". Again, in the Gazette of Tuesday, February 14 we read: "Goof Balls -New and Tougher Laws Believed to be Answer". And in the Gazette of Wednesday, February 15 there is another headline: "Trafficking Reduced but not Eliminated-Fulton".


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Fulton?


Romuald Bourque: Yes, sir. -"Trafficking Reduced but not Eliminated-Fulton". It reads:
Traffic in "goof balls" (barbiturate and amphetamine drugs) at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary is reduced but not yet eliminated, justice minister E. Davie Fulton said yesterday.
These things have been the subject of traffic in the penitentiaries everywhere, and they can be obtained at practically every doorway on the Main.


Jay Waldo Monteith: This is exactly what we are trying to cure.


Romuald Bourque: I know, but you are not going about it in the right way. Possibly the hon. gentleman has made a good beginning, but I am trying to explain that traffic in these things is so widespread in Montreal that today anyone can continue trafficking in these drugs without much risk of being caught. This is from the Montreal Star of March 4, 1961:	"Enlightened Action on Goof Ball
Menace Needed". Here is an article which appeared in the Montreal Star on Wednesday, February 28 entitled "Bribes, Goof Balls and the Law". Another, which appeared in the Gazette on February 14 is entitled: "The 'Goof Ball' Menace". Again in the Gazette of April 7, is a further article called: "Those who Peddle Goof Balls". These are all editorials.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have read most of them.


Romuald Bourque: Another, from the Gazette of May 25 is headed: "Narcotic Laws and 'Goof Balls'." I have a stack several feet high upstairs.


Jay Waldo Monteith: So have I.

Food and Drugs Act


Romuald Bourque: The newspapers, as is obvious from what I have been reading, consider this problem to present a real menace, but we are not being sincere in our approach. I am alarmed when I draw the attention of the committee to this. I have been telling this house about it for three years but only now is action being taken, and it is action which is mild in character. This involves the contamination of our youth, yet we are only taking mild measures to deal with it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think I must say a few words on the observations to which we have just listened. The hon. member claims the action we are taking is not sufficiently severe. At the moment the penalty for trafficking in narcotics is, I believe, 14 years. This legislation provides a penalty of ten years for trafficking in controlled drugs. I think that is a serious penalty, myself. This bill is designed to prevent precisely the type of thing to which the hon. member has been calling attention. It implements the recommendations of the citizens' committee. Incidentally, the hon. member indicated that I had probably heard from the mayor of Montreal about the meeting of that committee. No delegation has approached me so far. I am not sure whether or not any other member of the government has been approached but I have had no word from the citizens' committee of Montreal concerning this matter. I have the report, and I may say that practically all its recommendations have been implemented in this present bill.
(Translation):


Mr. English:: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended participating in this debate because I am not of the medical profession, nor am I a druggist. However, I followed every remark made in this chamber on the subject of goof balls such as those of the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque). He talked about goof balls for 30 minutes and-


Paul Joseph James Martin: And rightly so.


Roland Léo English: I will tell you in a moment if he was so right. The hon. member talked on that matter for 30 minutes-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Roland Léo English: -then, he made another speech during the examination of the estimates of the Minister of Justice, when he kept the floor on the same subject for another fifteen minutes. Nobody in this house would deny the nefarious effects of goof balls in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Are there goof balls in the constituency of Gaspe?


Roland Léo English: No. Come over to Gaspe, and you will find that I have no need to fight the use of goof balls, because there are none. However, there are some in your constituency.
Mr. Chairman, I have been listening closely to my colleagues, and I wonder whether we are not a bit responsible for the situation. While we all recognize that goof balls have caused great harm to our young people, I wonder whether the way to settle the problem is to publicize this drug and to suggest all kinds of recipes to our young people.
Really, Mr. Chairman, instead of teaching bad things to our young people, we in this house who all recognize that goof balls are bad for them should try to remedy the situation; however, I do not think that can be achieved by indulging in petty politics.
Mr. Chairman, we have actually provided recipes to our young people. We have discussed goof balls, we have discussed aspirins and coca-cola, and now I am wondering whether in fact we should not have awaited the bill which was introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith)-


Romuald Bourque: There would never have been a bill if we had stopped discussing the matter.


Roland Léo English: -who, I am sure, will apply the appropriate remedy to the situation.
Mr. Chairman, as I was saying a moment ago, I wish to discuss this bill not as a doctor or as a pharmacist, but I think I am entitled to discuss it as a former teacher who has always aimed at inculcating to our youth ideas that would be beneficial to the nation as a whole.
Therefore, I repeat, Mr. Chairman, this is not the place to say too much about goof balls. Anyhow, it is certainly not here that one should get the recipe for them.
We are here, on the contrary, to remedy the situation and to protect our young people.
(Text):


Romuald Bourque: The hon. member would like to fiddle, like Nero, while Rome burns. He wants to be like an ostrich with his head in the sand while the storm is raging.
The minister said a moment ago that he had not received anything from Montreal regarding this subject. I should just like to quote from an editorial which appeared-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I did not say that I had not received anything from Montreal. I said I had not received a request in this regard from the mayor of Montreal.


Romuald Bourque: Mr. Chairman, I should like to inform the hon. minister, in that event, what the recommendation is which is put forward by the mayor of Montreal.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I have the report here in front of me.


Romuald Bourque: In view of what the minister said a moment ago, I should like to read a few lines appearing in an editorial in La Presse of Saturday, April 22, 1961, which are as follows:
(Translation):
War on barbiturates.
The report of the subcommittee which was set up by Montreal's executive committee and which is headed by the mayor-
The report reads as follows:
To summarize the situation even very briefly, is to summarize the recommendations of the municipal subcommittee. The Criminal Code and the federal Food and Drugs Act must be amended so as to include barbiturates and narcotics and so as to apply to the latter the same control, regulations and penalties. The investigation which has just been completed, hasty and incomplete as it may be, should be enough to alert federal authorities and for the latter to adopt the necessary legislation and penalties immediately.
(Text):
That, translated roughly into English, means that we should have the same punitive sanction in respect of goof balls as we have in respect of narcotics.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I have the report of the committee before me. As a matter of fact, an officer of the inspection and enforcement services branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare was in attendance at that committee meeting. As I have said before, we have incorporated most of the ideas contained in the report of that committee in this bill. I said in reply to the suggestion made by the hon. member this afternoon regarding my being approached in respect of this subject, that I had not as yet been approached, and that is the situation. I have not been approached as yet in regard to an appointment in respect of this matter.


Jacques Flynn: Before I recognize another hon. member, I should like to point out that the committee is presently considering section 32, which has nothing to do with the principle of the bill, but relates to the punishment to be meted out to individuals convicted of being in possession of controlled drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
Shall section 32 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques Flynn: Shall section 33 carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, this section is important because of the means
Food and Drugs Act
taken to provide an effective sanction, but it deserves comment for another reason altogether, in that it touches, the heart of the alleged basic attitude of the policy of this government as to the position of the individual in relation to the state. I think it is important for us to look at the section to see exactly what is intended.
Section 33 (1) provides that if an accused does not plead guilty, the trial shall proceed as if the issue to be tried is whether the accused was in possession of a controlled drug. Subsection 2 (a) and (b) are the parts of this section which should be underlined. They read as follows:
(2) If, pursuant to subsection (1), the court finds that the accused was not in possession of a controlled drug, he shall be acquitted, but, if the court finds that the accused was in possession of a controlled drug, he shall be given an opportunity of establishing
(a)	that he acquired the controlled drug from a person authorized under the regulations to sell or deal with controlled drugs; or
(b)	that he was not in. possession of the controlled drug for the purposes of trafficking, and thereafter the prosecutor shall be given an opportunity of adducing evidence to the contrary.
Mr. Chairman, I fully concur in the objective that the minister has, throughout the basic concept of this bill, in trying to restrict the illicit use of controlled drugs. But what does this section which I have just read out do? It violates one of the acts introduced by this government and which sets out the basic freedoms and fundamental human rights which are allegedly guaranteed by the bill of rights. I refer the minister to section 2 of the bill of rights in the statutes of Canada, 1960. Section 2, paragraph (f) reads:
2. Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an act of the parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian bill of rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to
(f) deprive a person charged with a criminal offence of the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal,-
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont will remember the history of this particular section, because it was as a result of efforts made by Liberal members in the bill of rights committee that the presumption of innocence clause was put in the legislation. This was accepted by the Minister of Justice and later by the Prime Minister and the house. Therefore it is rather unusual that a minister of the same government should come forward with a bill which violates this very provision. The violation is to be found not only in section 33 but also in another section,

Food and Drugs Act
and I do no more than refer to it now because it is not before us. I simply mention that section 34 (2) violates the same principle incorporated in the bill of rights.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: Keep to
section 33.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I am going to keep to section 33; I just mention 34 (2) as we go along.
Under section 33, an individual in possession of a controlled drug is called upon to explain the circumstances of that possession and if he cannot there is a presumption of guilt. I say that under the bill of rights, notwithstanding the meritorious features of this bill and of its objectives, the onus should rest on the crown; otherwise the bill of rights is meaningless. I am surprised that this arises so soon after the passage of the bill of rights, particularly when we have just had it enshrined on pig skin and distributed all over this country, together with a monumental statement by the right hon. gentleman, the Prime Minister of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen opposite, including the minister, say, "hear, hear". I hope they will strongly back up the indictment which I am making on this particular section in relation to the bill of rights. But not only that, Mr. Chairman. Under section 3 of the bill of rights there is an obligation on the Minister of Justice "to scrutinize every proposed regulation submitted in draft form to the clerk of the privy council and also every bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of section 3 of the bill of rights". Unless the procedure for the preparation of bills has changed, a draft of this bill must have gone through the hands of the Solicitor General or of the Minister of Justice and to a committee of cabinet before it was considered and approved in principle by the cabinet as a whole.
Did the Minister of Justice see this bill? If he did see it, what comment did he make about this provision in section 33 (2), which clearly puts the onus on the possessor of the so-called controlled drug? I am sure we can get at individuals in this country who are trafficking in controlled drugs without violating the basic provisions of the bill of rights, without violating one of the essential human freedoms, one of the essential elements in our common law system and in our civil law system. I hope that the minister, backed up by the skill of the Solicitor General, will be able to explain the dilemma
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1
into which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been plunged as a result of the failure of the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice to be fully vigilant in this matter as they must be under section 3 of the bill of rights.


John Ferguson Browne: I do not
know whether I can satisfy the hon. member for Essex East, but I will do the best I can. He speaks of section 33. He read out section 33 (1) which reads:
(1)	In any prosecution for a violation of subsection (2) of section 32,-
Subsection (2) of section 32 reads:
No person shall have in his possession any controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking.
If in a prosecution the accused does not plead guilty, if when he is before the magistrate, he does not say "I am guilty", the section goes on to say:
-the trial shall proceed as if the Issue to be tried is whether the accused was in possession of a controlled drug.
(2)	If, pursuant to subsection (1), the court finds that the accused was not in possession of a controlled drug, he shall be acquitted,-[DOT]
The magistrate says "The case is dismissed" and the individual goes away. I continue:
-but if the court finds that the accused was in possession of a controlled drug, he shall be given an opportunity of establishing-
The magistrate says "I find that you have been in possession of a controlled drug. You have the right to show that this controlled drug which you had in your possession was acquired by you from a person authorized under the regulations to sell or deal with controlled drugs", or that he was not in possession of the controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking, and thereafter the prosecutor shall be given an opportunity of adducing evidence to the contrary. In other words, if the man lies, perjures himself, if he gives evidence or makes a statement which the prosecutor knows to be false and can prove to be false, the prosecutor is given that opportunity of rebuttal.
The hon. member for Essex East also knows that even where a man has been acquitted the attorney general can appeal from one court to another and have the case heard again. Therefore, in this instance, it is only a question of the prosecutor being given the right to rebut statements which he can show to be false.
I go on with paragraph (3):
If the accused established the facts set forth in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2)-
That is, that he acquired the controlled drug from a person lawfully licensed to sell

or deal with it or that he was not in possession of it for the purpose of trafficking. I continue:
-he shall be acquitted of the offence as charged;-
In other words, if he shows that he was not in possession of the controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking, then the case shall be dismissed. The man is acquitted. The magistrate says "Case dismissed". I continue with the quotation:
-and if the accused fails to so establish he shall be convicted of the offence as charged and sentenced accordingly.
In other words, if he does not satisfy the magistrate that the controlled drug which he had in his possession and for which he has been charged wth trafficking came into his hands innocently, then he has to be convicted.
In regard to the statement made by the hon. member who just spoke concerning the bill of rights, the Minister of Justice examines every bill that comes in here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under the statute he must.


William Joseph Browne: Yes, he must do it under the statute. He does it and he has done it in regard to this one and he has certified that he has satisfied himself that this does not interfere with the provisions of the bill of rights.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say only a few words to support the important point which has been raised by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin).
The hon. member has repeated the well known legal saying that a man is innocent until he is proven guilty. I should like to add to the point that has been made.
We are presently dealing with criminal law. Now, it is obvious that under section 33, the accused will have to take the stand to overthrow the presumption of guilt which that section sets on him. Since when is an accused compelled to take the stand in a criminal case? It is up to the crown to make a case and if it does not succeed, the judge must dismiss the charge without the accused having to appear on the witness stand.
That, I feel, is one of the most important points. Under section 33, the accused has to take the stand to dismiss the presumption of guilt which hangs over his head.
I feel that the point raised by the hon. member for Essex East is of momentous importance, and I would suggest to the minister that we should postpone the examination of
Food and Drugs Act
section 33 until the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) has had a chance to consider that section in relation to the bill of rights we adopted last year.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I should like to say a word following the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets). The only thing I see when I look at section 33 is that it provides for a procedure in the matter of evidence. In other words, the onus has merely been shifted. The crown must first prove possession and once that is done, the trial follows the normal principles of justice according to which the accused is presumed-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the hon. member allow me to ask a question?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Just a moment, let me finish my argument and then the hon. member may ask his question.
Once this first step in the hearing is completed, and assuming evidence as to possession has been established, then the accused is called upon to prove that he was innocent of such possession.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont seemed to think that an innovation in criminal law was involved. Well, I am quite sure he must remember that such procedure regarding the burden of the proof already exists in the Criminal Code. I am thinking specifically of the indictment of receiving and concealing where the crown must establish possession of goods recently stolen, and then the accused has to establish that he was innocent of such possession.
Such provision has been part of our penal law for many years. Nobody ever suggested that the accused was deprived of a fundamental right because he had to establish his innocence as far as possession of stolen goods was concerned. Therefore, there is no inconsistency between this provision and the bill of rights.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I shall not put my remarks in question form. I only want to add this: could the minister tell me whether the point I am going to raise is well taken or not?
Here is the case of a man who is brought before the courts under the charge of being in possession of controlled drugs under this amendment. The crown proves the fact of possession. Now under this section, the accused must stand in the witness box to deny this legal presumption created by possession. The hon. member who has just spoken-

Food and Drugs Act


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -is well aware that under this act, possession is not illegal in every case, mere possession is not illegal. Possession is illegal only for traffic purposes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is correct.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Then how can these things go together?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Is it not also true that possession of stolen goods is not illegal in every case?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I do not want to drag in another problem. The problem we now have to settle is quite serious, and I would like the minister to explain this. We require the accused to go into the witness box to disprove a legal presumption under this act, when mere possession is not controlled under this amendment.


Paul Raymond Martineau: There is one thing I should like to point out with respect to the remarks of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont. He says we require the accused to go into the witness box to prove the nature of his possession. However, he need not necessarily go into the witness box to prove it; he can prove his innocence in a number of ways, and if he chooses to enter the witness box, he does so of his own free will.
Under this act, no obligation is placed on the accused to go into the witness box. If there were such an obligation, I would entirely agree with the hon. member that there is a violation of one of the basic principles of our criminal law.
(Text):


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with section 33 which refers us back to section 32. We are really back to the discussion we had on subsection 1 of section 32. Subsection 2 of section 33 provides in part as follows:
If, pursuant to subsection 1, the court finds that the accused was not in possession of a controlled drug, he shall be acquitted-
Section 32, subsection 1, does not speak of possession at all. If the minister's previous explanation had to do with the possession or sale of a controlled drug and if in fact it was not a controlled drug and the person only made a representation he must be acquitted under section 33. If he must be acquitted when he merely makes a representation about something that is not a controlled drug by

saying that it is, what is the purpose of setting up a straw man in section 32 which you knock down in section 33? Would it not have been wiser, and I repeat what I said before, to refer in section 32 to the person being in possession of something that might be an ingredient of a controlled drug and then section 33 would follow logically?


William Joseph Browne: May I point out to the hon. member that we are dealing with the offence under section 32, subsection 2, which provides that no person shall have in his possession any controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking. That is what we are dealing with and not the other point to which he has referred.


Leon David Crestohl: Subsection 2 of section 33 says:
If, pursuant to subsection 1, the court finds that the accused was not in possession of a controlled drug-


John Ferguson Browne: It refers to subsection 1 of section 33.


Leon David Crestohl: Subsection 1 of section 33 speaks of section 32.


William Joseph Browne: It speaks of subsection 2 of section 32.


Leon David Crestohl: If that is the case, I am probably in error but I would point out that it certainly is very confusing. It is certainly far from clear. I think ordinarily one cannot see the matter with the clarity with which the minister sees it. At this point, I should like to say that the mere fact a draftsman writes a document which is brought before the house does not make it sacrosanct. Surely, when suggestions are made for changes, they should not be rejected out of hand.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman; that is entirely unfair. We have ' already accepted an amendment moved by the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That being the case, I hope the minister will accede to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont or an amendment which he may propose himself to deal with the situation I have indicated and which has been confirmed by my two colleagues.
Subsection 1 points out that if the accused does not plead guilty-that is the controlling situation-then the trial proceeds as if the issue to be determined were whether or not the accused was in possession of a controlled drug. Now, these are the governing words. Once the accused fails to plead guilty, then the trial proceeds as if the only issue were whether or not the accused was in possession

of a controlled drug. This provision is a clear violation of the bill of rights because it imposes a presumption of guilt, which is contrary to the bill of rights.


Mr. Macdonnell:: May I ask the hon. member a question? He says it imposes a presumption of guilt, and I do not follow that at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon. member will just listen to the rest of my argument, I would point out that the controlling provision is subsection 1 of section 33. If the accused refuses to plead guilty, then the issue to be tried is whether or not he was in possession or is in possession of controlled drugs. From that moment on, under subsection 2 an obligation is imposed upon him to indicate that he was not in possession of a controlled drug within the meaning of this section.
Then, if you look at subsection 3, you find that if the accused satisfies the court that he was not in improper possession of the drugs, he will be acquitted of the offence. This only happens if he establishes the fact himself that he has not been in possession of controlled drugs.
We come back to the beginning. I repeat, where he refuses to plead guilty the issue is whether or not he was in possession of a controlled drug. Only when he can satisfy the court that he was not in possession of a controlled drug will he be regarded as not having come within the mischief of this section. Now, if that is not imposing upon the accused an onus which normally resides with the crown, then I will be very greatly surprised. This is done in an indirect way, and that makes the situation all the more serious because it is only by a careful reading of the provision that one sees there is no doubt that the presumption of establishing his innocence when he refuses to plead guilty is imposed upon the accused. This is contrary to the bill of rights. I ask the minister to either allow the section to stand or to move an amendment which will remove the government from any stigma of having introduced a measure itself which is clearly contrary to the bill of rights.


Mr. Montgomery:: Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of respect for the hon. member for Essex East. I know he is an experienced lawyer, and I have a lot of respect for his opinions. However, I certainly do not agree with his interpretation of this section. He has misread it. If a man does not plead guilty, the onus is still on the crown. First, the onus is on the crown to show that the man was in possession. Then, the onus may shift and he may explain it as the trial goes 90205-6-355
Food and Drugs Act
on. Now, that is not putting any unfair obligation upon the accused. He explains it, and he is found not guilty. If he cannot explain it, then the crown must go on to show that he has the drug for illegal purposes. Unless the accused can explain why he has it, then he is guilty. I do not read the provision the way the hon. member does. I do not think the man is put in jeopardy. I do not see that the provision can be changed in any way. We have many statutes containing such provisions where the man himself is caught with the goods and he is the only person who can really explain why he has them. I do not see how the suggested amendment would help. I do not see the provision the way the hon. member does, and I do not think the man is put in jeopardy.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few comments on what the hon. member has just said, because he does not seem to understand.
(Text):


Gage Workman Montgomery: I understand quite well. (Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: With his permission, I shall give him some explanation about our stand with regard to section 33.
The hon. member will remember that the minister clearly stated earlier that possession only does not constitute an offence under this amendment. Therefore, if a person is indicted, it will necessarily be for drug trafficking. The charge made, it will be quite easy for the crown to prove possession, of course, since the individual has been found in possession of the drug. After the crown has proved possession, which is not illegal in itself, under this bill, we throw upon the accused the necessity of testifying in order to prove that he is not guilty as presumed, by saying what he intended to do with that drug. If the accused is able to prove that he is in possession of this drug for his personal use only, then I understand he will be acquitted. But, if the accused refuses to testify, under section 33(3), the judge must convict him of the offence, whereas possession only, under this bill, does not constitute an offence. This is our opinion on the matter.
(Text):


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the minister going to accept the suggestion that we allow the section to stand and go on with the other sections?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, I am content to let it stand, Mr. Chairman.

Food and Drugs Act


Jacques Flynn: Shall section 33 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques Flynn: Shall section 34 carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would suggest that section 34 (1) be allowed to pass. Subsection 2, however, reads in part:
In any prosecution under this part the burden of proving that an exception, exemption, excuse or qualification prescribed by law operates in favour of the accused is on the accused,-
Perhaps the minister would allow this subsection to stand as well, then the minister could give it consideration and we could discuss it at the next stage.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Agreed.


Jacques Flynn: Shall section 34 (1) carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Jacques Flynn: Shall section 34 (2) stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques Flynn: Shall section 35 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques Flynn: Shall section 36 carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have a question on section 36 (3). Will the minister explain to me why, in section 36 (2), there is mentioned a warrant to search a dwelling house to be issued by a magistrate and then in section 3 there is the provision that a writ of assistance may be obtained from the judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada? Why is it necessarily or exclusively the Exchequer Court of Canada?


Jay Waldo Monteith: This is a special authority. The writ of assistance is a special authority for which provision is made in the narcotic act and the Excise Act. In effect, this clothes the person named therein with the general powers to search dwelling houses as well as other places. The writ of assistance in this legislation will be issued only on application of the Minister of National Health and Welfare in accordance with the prevailing practice under the narcotics act. The writ will be issued only to members of the R.C.M.P. at the request of the commissioner of that force; and here it will be limited to the persons who are actually engaged in the specific duties connected with the suppression of the traffic in controlled drugs. There will certainly be no abuse of this authority. It is simply a writ of assistance to permit search by peace officers, that is members of the R.C.M.P. squad connected with this particular work.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the minister for his reply. I know the purpose of the writ and I know what a writ of assistance

is, but my question was this. Why must this necessarily be given on application by the minister only to an exchequer court judge? Suppose this situation exists, for example, in Vancouver. Suppose a situation arises such as that which prevails in Montreal and quick action may be required. What we are looking for, of course, is the most effective enforcement of this measure.


Jay Waldo Monteith: If I might just interrupt the hon. member at this point I should like to say this. This is a standing order or permit to search. It is entirely different from section 36 (2). It is a general authority to search, for these particular people who are attached to this particular type of work.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the minister mean that the writ of assistance gives them the right, apart from any particular case covered in a particular application, to go in at any time? I do not think so.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It means the individual.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely. But only with respect to a particular situation. It is not a blank cheque. It is not an authorization by the exchequer court to Mr. X to go in and examine the premises of anyone, anywhere, in any part of Canada, at any time.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: It states "any dwelling
house".


Jay Waldo Monteith: This same procedure is provided for in the Customs Act and in the Excise Act and it has been in the narcotics act for many years. It is the same procedure that is devised here, word for word.


Jacques Flynn: Shall section 36 carry?


Leon David Crestohl: Section 36 (3) contains these words: "A judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada shall upon application by the minister,". Does the minister now mean to inform the committee that an application will be made just once for a writ that will provide a blanket authority or does the section mean that whenever a case arises an application can be made to the minister for the issue of such authority? What do the words "upon application" mean?


Jay Waldo Monteith: If I may, I shall put it in this way. Suppose a certain member of the R.C.M.P. is appointed to the squad, shall we say, to investigate this type of case. The commissioner of the R.C.M.P. requests me to apply to the Exchequer Court of Canada for a writ of assistance for this particular police officer in charge of the squad. Then while he is holding that particular position this one writ of assistance will cover him in his duties covering more than one

case. But this has been common practice for many years. The moment this particular officer moves on to another position or leaves the squad and that sort of thing, of course the writ of assistance is moved from his possession. He no longer has it. On somebody new taking over this position, he obtains one as a consequence of the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. asking me to apply to the exchequer court.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister explain section 36 (6) wherein it is provided that the applicant will be entitled to possession of the controlled drug upon the hearing of an application made under subsection 5 and the magistrate is satisfied as to the circumstances. If I may, I should like to refer just briefly to section 33, subsections 1, 2 and 3. What are the circumstances in which an individual is entitled under this act to be in possession of a controlled drug? Is it only where the court has been satisfied that he is not trafficking? If he can satisfy the court that he is not trafficking, is there any qualification of his right of possession of a controlled drug?


Jay Waldo Monteith: If he is not found guilty of trafficking he is entitled to the return of the controlled drug or if no charge is laid he is entitled to the return of the controlled drug.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what I thought.


Jacques Flynn: Shall section 36 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will you allow me to go back to section 37(1) (f).


Jacques Flynn: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This paragraph has to do with the sanction against persons covered in paragraphs (a),	(b), (c)	(d)
and (e) and they include those who are manufacturing, selling, importing, transporting, delivering and so on. One of the important ways by which this measure will become effective is by trying to get at the source of import or importation and the source of manufacture. Assuming guilt on the part of the manufacturer or on the part of the importer, does the minister consider the sanction provided here of a fine of five hundred dollars or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months to be sufficient? Does he not think that it is wholly unrelated to the punishment provided for in section 32(2)?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, Mr. Chairman;
I think so, for this reason. Actually, if in the search of records and so on, we find
90205-6-355J
Freight Rates Reduction Act that somebody has actually been violating the law, he will probably be found guilty of trafficking and then he will be subject to the other sentence under the other section. This probably might be a procedural error or some technical mistake. We feel, as a consequence, that these fines or these penalties are sufficient for violation of the regulations. But, as I say, if as a result of searching the records, he is found to have been trafficking he will then be guilty of an offence under the other section.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 37 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: Shall clause 38 carry?


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry, including all sections? Oh, no. We have allowed section 33 to stand.


Mr. Martin (Essex Easl):: No. We allowed section 33 and section 34(2) to stand.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 2 carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. Section 34(2) stands.


Jacques Flynn: Yes, but shall clause 2 of the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.


Jacques Flynn: We are going back to section 33, clause 1.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All of section 33 stands.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I wonder if the committee could rise at this stage and report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have other business to proceed with in committee. I think the minister had indicated simply that we would move the adjournment of proceedings on this bill in committee.


Jacques Flynn: Yes, but the committee has to report, because it has no other purpose than to consider this particular bill.
Progress reported.



FREIGHT RATES REDUCTION ACT


Léon Balcer: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-93, to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
5628	HOUSE OF
Freight Rates Reduction Act
On clause 1-Extension of time.


Lionel Chevrier: Has the minister any statement to make?


Léon Balcer: No.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to get some information in connection with this clause. This clause does two things. It extends the Freight Rates Reduction Act which was passed previously for a year, that is, until April 30, 1962. It also purports to make retroactive the payments which are authorized by the former act so that during the period of time between April 30, 1961 and the date when this act is proclaimed there may be no loss of revenue to the railway companies. I do not think the bill does that, and I will tell the minister why. As far as the reduction of freight rates is concerned, I think that is provided for effectively. I think this bill does reduce the rate to the shipper. But I do not think that the way in which it is worded here gives the railways the moneys which they would be entitled to receive between April 30 and the date when the act will be proclaimed. My reason for thinking so is this: the board of transport commissioners may reduce a rate or it may increase a rate, but it cannot make a rate retroactive and therefore it cannot make a payment retroactive. The decision has been made as far as the shipper is concerned by the railways filing a tariff reducing the rate as on May 1, 1961, but in so far as the railways themselves are concerned, since the board of transport commissioners cannot make the payment retroactive it seems to me that there is a weakness in this clause. I may be wrong and if that is the case I should like to be corrected.


Léon Balcer: I should like to direct the attention of the hon. member for Laurier to clause 1 itself. I think we have discussed this in the committee-


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Léon Balcer: I went over the whole matter. The hon. member put the same question to the experts who appeared as witnesses before the committee. All I can do is to refer the hon. gentleman to the bill itself.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister permit me to interrupt? I did not ask that question. I did take part in the discussion the first day but when this clause came up for discussion I was, unfortunately, not present or I would have raised the matter in the committee.


Léon Balcer: I am sorry. It was raised by the hon. member for Essex East. The only difference between this bill and the previous


bill lies in precisely the last few lines of clause 1 where we say:
-and in such cases diminution in the gross revenue of a company resulting from the continuation in effect after the 30th day of April, 1961, and before the day on which the extension became effective of the revised rates set forth in the order shall for the purposes of the Freight Bates Reduction Act be deemed to have resulted from an order made by the board under that act.
I think it is quite clear that this bill gives power to the board of transport commissioners to pay the railroads with exactly the same effect as if an order had been made by the board under the act. As the hon. member said, the shippers will not lose anything because both railway presidents wrote a letter a few days before April 30 stating that they did not intend to file tariffs to bring this increase to 17 per cent back into force. Thus, the shippers carried on business and continued shipping at rates which were the same as the rates which had been reduced to 8 per cent by the previous bill amending the Freight Rates Reduction Act. The reason why the railways will be in a position to recover the amount which might be lost to them on account of the delay in the passage of the bill is because after the end of each month there is a time lag of two or three months before the companies are able to process and submit their bills for that month's traffic. Consequently, bills for March and April, for instance, have not yet been received. The same applies to the month of May. Once the board receives the bills and issues an order, then they can be paid.
I suggest that is exactly what will happen. The period between April 30, and the day that this bill receives royal assent, is covered, because the railway companies will produce bills covering that period of perhaps two months, and will receive payment once the board has issued an order under the appropriate section of the act. It is my opinion, therefore, that the shippers and the railway companies will be looked after.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that the shippers will be looked after, and am quite satisfied that their case is covered. However, the minister has suggested that the last part of the clause, which is intended to cover the making of retroactive payments to the railways authorizes the board of transport commissioners to do so, and I suggest that is the weakness. If I understand the situation correctly, the board of transport commissioners has no authority at all to pay the railways, and the only person who can do so is the Minister of Finance.


Léon Balcer: Yes, that is right.


Lionel Chevrier: The board has no authority to pay the railways under this section, and that is why I feel some further amendment should be included to authorize the Minister of Finance, after the board has decided what the amount is, to pay that amount to the railways. I suggest the last part does not cover that situation.


Léon Balcer: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I disagree with the hon. member. Section 4 of the present act reads as follows:
4. (1) The Minister of Finance may, with the approval of the governor in council and on the recommendation of the board, pay to a company out of the consolidated revenue fund, an amount that in the opinion of the board is equal to the diminution in the gross revenue of the company resulting from an order made by the board under this act.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the order mentioned in this bill is that order which is deemed to have resulted from an order made by the board under the act. I think that premise is found in the last few lines of clause 1 of this bill.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to pursue this unduly, and if the minister is satisfied that the situation to which I have referred is covered by the present bill, I shall not hold up the legislation. However, the minister did say that this clause authorizes the board to pay the railway. Am I correct in that statement.


Léon Balcer: I beg your pardon?


Lionel Chevrier: Did the minister say that the last part of this clause authorized the board to pay the railways?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, the railways are to be paid by the Minister of Finance, not by the board. I quite agree that I made a mistake in that regard. Under section 4 of the act, the Minister of Finance is authorized to pay the railways.


Lionel Chevrier: In view of that statement, the minister and I are apparently in accord, in that it is not the board of transport commissioners that pay the railways, but the Minister of Finance. That being the case, and in the light of the amendment submitted, is the minister satisfied, that there is sufficient authority to make the payments retroactive to April 30 from the time this act is proclaimed, as the clause is now worded?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, line 5 of section 4 states that:
-In the opinion of the board is equal to the diminution in the gross revenue of the company resulting from an order made by the board under this act.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the minister reading from?
Freight Rates Reduction Act


Léon Balcer: From the act itself.


Lionel Chevrier: From the original act?


Léon Balcer: Yes, section 4 of the original act. The portion of this bill which amends the original act reads as follows:
*-the revised rates set forth in the order shall, for the purposes of the Freight Rates Reduction Act, be deemed to have resulted from an order made by the board under that act.
I think that wording in the bill means exactly the same as the wording in the original act. This bill provides that the period be covered, because the diminution shall be deemed to have resulted from an order made under the act. I think that covers the situation, because there is a clear relationship between the two.


Lionel Chevrier: I raised the question because I thought it was ambiguous. Had I been present at the committee meeting, when the discussion took place in respect of that clause, I should have raised the question in the same manner I have raised it here, because I am not satisfied with the wording. However, if the minister tells us that his officers feel that the wording is sufficient, I shall not hold up the bill any further.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Limit.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, could the minister explain the background to this increase of $20 million in the amount provided by this bill in respect of freight rates reduction?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I think I explained that quite fully both at the resolution stage and in discussion on the bill during second reading. This legislation is what is termed "roll-back legislation", and is provided to make sure that the reduction of 7 per cent in freight rates, resulting from the roll-back from 17 per cent to 10 per cent, will be covered. For that purpose, an amount of $20 million is set aside to pay the railways, through the Minister of Finance, on the order of the board of transport commissioners. The railways send their bills to the board of transport commissioners at the end of each month for the recommendation of that board, in order that the Minister of Finance can make payment. The board of transport commissioners, as a result of this procedure, have recommended that $20 million will cover the roll-back resulting from the 2 per cent reduction in the change from 10 per cent to 8 per cent.
It will be recalled that last year, when a similar bill was presented to the house by my predecessor, at the same time he announced the creation of the royal commission

Freight Rates Reduction Act on transportation, he indicated that while the royal commission was making a complete study in respect of the problems of transportation in Canada, this act should be extended for another year so as to eliminate the possibility of any discrimination occurring to shippers during that period. That is why the government put forward an amendment to the Freight Rates Reduction Act at that time, in respect of the $15 million increase.
The report of the MacPherson commission was received by the government very recently, and until legislation based on this report can be implemented in the house the government felt that this roll-back legislation should carry on for another period. This is why we have extended it for a period not exceeding one year. We have also substituted for $35 million the amount of $55 million. Actually, all that this legislation does is to carry on the roll-back legislation which was introduced in the house two years ago.
When the government brings forward legislation based on the MacPherson report it will then consider whether or not it will carry on with this program. The provision is for one year which actually ends on April 30, 1962.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for his brief explanation. The $55 million is an estimate; that is, it is the outside total. It will not necessarily all be used.


Léon Balcer: That is right. If the situation remains as it is until April 30, 1962, it will be used because the $20 million covers the roll-back on the freight rate from 17 per cent to 8 per cent. The original increase of 17 per cent has been rolled back to an increase of 8 per cent, and the difference of 9 per cent is covered by the $20 million mentioned in clause 2 of the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: Why is the amount fixed at $20 million? Is it because it takes that amount of money to provide for a continuation of the reduction?


Léon Balcer: Yes; it is based on the experience of the first year, Mr. Chairman. The original act was for $20 million and it was intended to cover the roll-back of 7 per cent, but the experience of the first year has shown that this amount covers more than the 7 per cent. Actually it produced a reduction of 9 per cent instead of 7 per cent.


Lionel Chevrier: What was the amount of the subsidy in the second year?


Léon Balcer: It was $15 million.


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

Gordon Minto Churchill: I suggest that at this stage we might take item No. 10 on today's order paper, which is the resolution dealing with the War Veterans Allowance Act. We debated this at some length on May 16. If the resolution passes tonight the bill will be distributed in the morning and be available for second reading tomorrow. After second reading it will be sent to the standing committee on veterans affairs. If this is agreeable, then we can consider tonight item No. 1 on today's order paper which is Bill No. C-88 to amend the Army Benevolent Fund Act. This is a small bill which has already been examined by the standing committee on veterans affairs and has come back to the house.


Lionel Chevrier: We have no objection.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If the house finishes these two items in good time I do not think anybody would object to rising early.


Lionel Chevrier: This is not the order in which the business was given last night but there is certainly no objection, so far as we are concerned, to taking item No. 10. As the house leader says, it has been discussed on a number of occasions and it can be taken now.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday May 16, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Churchill-Mr. Flynn in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952, to increase the monthly rates of allowances and permissible income ceilings; to allow for further exemptions in property and income; to modify certain conditions of service eligibility; to allow for administrative and organizational changes within the board and to provide for certain further changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Churchill thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-101, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the intention that this bill be given second reading now?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Second reading at the next sitting, sir.



ARMY BENEVOLENT FUND ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. C-88, to amend the Army Benevolent Fund Act- Mr. Churchill-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Interest.
Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, this bill has been considered very carefully in the Veterans Affairs Committee. Many items were discussed in the committee which I think settled some of the problems that were raised in the house when the bill was before us on an earlier occasion. A request had been made to extend the provisions of the fund to Newfoundland veterans but that was dealt with in the committee by pointing out that those who contributed to this fund were the only ones who were entitled to share in the fund.
The fund arose as a result of various activities of the Canadian army in the second world war and it is those veterans of that particular army who are entitled to the benefits of the fund. R.C.A.F. veterans, for example, cannot make use of this fund. Neither can navy veterans use the fund nor army veterans of the first world war. As I pointed out when this matter was before the house on a former occasion, the moneys in the fund were derived from the regimental funds of army units, from auxiliary services, from Bronco, from the navy, army and air force institutes and from various miscellaneous sources, all of which funds resulted, as I have mentioned, from the sale of comforts and so on to the soldiers of the Canadian army.
There are certain Canadian funds in existence from the first world war. To my knowledge only three are left now, those in Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick. Originally such funds existed, I believe, in nearly every province in the country but as the moneys in these funds were used up the administrations closed their doors and the funds ceased to exist.
There is still a good deal of money left in the fund we are considering now and the purpose of the bill is explained fairly adequately in the explanatory notes accompanying the bill. Without going into a clause by clause discussion of the bill at the moment, I might point out that it has been thought that the interest rates should be increased as set forth in the bill to bring them in line with interest rates paid on similar funds held by the government of Canada.
Second, the purpose of the bill is to make an adjustment in the way the salary of the secretary is fixed in order that this matter may be removed from the statute and the
Army Benevolent Fund Act salary fixed by the board itself. I understand the secretary has not received any increase in salary for a number of years and it is thought that to have his salary made statutory is not a convenient way to deal with it.
In the standing committee it was suggested by the Canadian Legion that the interest rates should be increased still further than is set forth in the bill. When you increase interest rates on this or any other fund, I suppose it is always possible to suggest that the rate should be increased still further but the figure that has been selected in this case has been chosen on the basis of the principles which have existed for the setting of the interest rate on this fund in times past, particularly in 1952 and also in 1947 when the fund was originally established. Therefore I think we had better stick to the original principles for the setting of these interest rates, and the activities of the fund, will, of course, be tailored in accordance with the amount of money available.
I think that is all I can usefully say at the present time. As I mentioned, the bill was discussed very thoroughly in the standing committee and we are bringing it forward now for consideration in committee of the whole house.


Mr. Forgie:: Mr. Chairman, as the parliamentary secretary has said, this matter was discussed very thoroughly before the veterans affairs committee and the only subject of controversy at the present time is the rate of interest to be paid on the fund. The fund does not belong to the taxpayers of Canada or to the government but rather to the army veterans of world war II, and the same careful consideration should be given to the investment of these funds as the government or any other organization gives to the investment of funds. Before the veterans affairs committee the parliamentary secretary said, as found on page 313 of the proceedings of the committee:
The amendment to the act is a straightforward operation to increase the interest rate by one half per cent on each of the two categories mentioned in the bill. This increase brings it in line with the general type of interest paid by the government to funds of a similar character. I think that is all that needs to be said about the interest factor.
With that statement I do not agree because if the parliamentary secretary will refer to page 326 of the proceedings of the veterans affairs committee-


Henry Frank Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think it is not customary to read from the proceedings of committees of this house when we are dealing with a matter in the house itself.

Army Benevolent Fund Act


Jacques Flynn: Do I understand that the committee has reported? The committee has reported the bill and therefore I do not see how this rule would apply in the present case. It seems to me that the discussion in the standing committee with respect to this bill would be relevant to the discussion in this committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that is quite correct. The committee dealt with the bill and reported it back to the house and in the past we have followed this practice when the work of the standing committee has been concluded.


James Moffat Forgie: I want to bring into focus the question of the interest rate payable on the fund. I think there are two courses open. One is for the fund administered by the army benevolent fund committee to be invested by them. The other is that the government should pay the same rate of interest on the fund that they paid to borrow money in the conversion loan which falls due in 1983. At the present time the prevailing rate of yield on conversion loan bonds is 5.14 per cent. If these moneys were invested at 5.14 per cent the fund would be able to carry on, as was originally planned when the act was passed in 1947, for a period of 50 years at which time the fund would be exhausted.
The Canadian Legion made the following recommendations before the veterans affairs committee:
The Canadian Legion, therefore, believes the government must accept that the minimum rate at which money can be obtained in the open market is somewhere between 4J per cent and 5 per cent, and that this should be acknowledged by establishing a rate such as 41 per cent as the minimum to be paid by the receiver general to the army benevolent fund in respect of the balance which is available to the government at all times. We believe that by increasing the rate to 41 per cent per annum it would mean that the fund would have available more adequate means with which to meet the original intent of this legislation.
There is no doubt about it, Mr. Chairman. If the 4J per cent rate were to prevail across the board in relation to these moneys, there would be a considerable increase in the return on the moneys but it would not be adequate to take care of this fund for the full period of 50 years. I am suggesting, therefore, that the yield that should be obtained from this army benevolent fund should be the same as that obtained from the conversion bonds which are yielding about 5.14 per cent. These were the last figures I had, and they may have changed fractionally since then.
Let us look at the remarks of Mr. Chad-derton, as they are recorded on page 314 of the evidence of the veterans affairs committee. He had this to say:

We started with $9,200,000. Today we have left $6,500,000. So we have spent in cold cash from the fund, we have depleted the fund, in other words, in the amount of $2,700,000. In addition, we have had revenue through interest of $3,500,000. So the total amount now spent is $6,200,000. We operate this fund on an actuarial plan, which envisaged 30 years of full operation from 1947. The act states that we must remain in business for 50 years. The actuarial plan provides for a full period of operation of 30 years with a small residue to take care of the remaining 20 years. This, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, offers a very serious problem to the army benevolent fund. I have already noted that we have left today only $6,500,000, but in accordance with this actuarial plan, we should have $7 million. So we have had to overspend to the tune of $500,000.
We had a new actuarial plan drafted at the end of the last fiscal year. The figures which the department of insurance gave us were such that we would have to reduce our expenditure for welfare grants and administration to $450,000 a year. Even with the proposed increase in interest in the bill before the parliamentary committee today, we can increase our expenditure to only $470,000 a year, even if we should get this increase in interest. The actual expenditures have averaged over the past 10 years $530,000 a year. We are facing a very serious problem, and our board sees one of two alternatives; either they must cut down on the amount that we spend each year and leave deserving cases out in the cold, or secondly, we must reduce the remaining 17 years of operation of the fund. Our board would not wish to do either of these things, because we have operated from the start on the principle that the veteran who is in trouble today is just as much entitled to assistance as the veteran who was in trouble at the start of the fund. And by the same token, if a veteran is in trouble 17 years from now, he should still have the availability of the army benevolent fund.
I asked Mr. Chadderton the following question as recorded on page 319 of the evidence:
Let me ask you another question: Do you feel that a higher rate of interest could be obtained if this fund were placed in the hands of a committee of the army benevolent fund, and that they should be allowed to invest this fund as they saw fit? You recall that it is not government money. You have already stated it. This money belongs to the veterans. Would it not be advisable to transfer to that committee from the government, or the receiver general, or the consolidated revenue fund, or whoever does the investing of the army benevolent fund?


Mr. Chadderton:: 
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am rather hurt, Mr. Chairman, to see the parliamentary assistant rising to close the debate on this clause.


Henry Frank Jones: The debate is not closed when I rise to reply to an hon. member.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was just going to congratulate him on his first opportunity to pilot a bill in the house.
This bill did receive very careful consideration by the standing committee on veterans affairs. It is a rather simple bill and is only concerned with interest rates. It was surprising, therefore, the interest which was shown in the administration of the fund. We received an excellent explanation of the administration of the fund from Mr. Chadder-ton, the secretary. He explained the various aspects of the fund, the forms of expenditure and things of that sort. I think it is quite fair to say that all members of the committee, regardless of party, were impressed by his explanation of the administration of the fund over the years. He explained the way grants were made to veterans. We found that there were even lady veterans now getting assistance on occasion from the fund for the purpose of assisting them in coping with circumstances over which, in the majority of cases, they had little control.
I think it is safe to say we were all convinced that the administration of the fund was sound, humane and in the interests of the veterans it was intended to serve. The trustees of this fund certainly should be commended for the work they have carried on throughout these years. We also heard some interesting representations from the Canadian Legion. Their brief showed a good knowledge of the administration of the fund and the financial aspects of the fund, as explained by the previous speaker. I am not going to take the time of the committee to deal with the interest question in full because he covered the situation quite fully in his remarks, and in his quotations from the record and from Mr. Chadderton's explanation to members of the committee.
90205-6-356
Army Benevolent Fund Act
After hearing the representations from a representative of the Canadian Legion and after hearing Mr. Chadderton's explanation of the financial condition of the fund, the intended life of the fund and the responsibilities there were in connection with the years ahead, I made a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Lanark; and the committee recommended that the government give consideration to the recommendations of the Canadian Legion in this respect which were, in brief, to provide for an interest rate of 4f per cent in order to ensure that the fund would last over the period of 50 years and meet the circumstances it was expected would have to be met during that period. That motion was adopted by the committee after some discussion, although I must say that I agree with the hon. member who spoke previously. During the debate on second reading I think I suggested that the interest rate should be 5 per cent and I think the hon. member suggested a similar figure, in order to meet this situation. These funds belonged to the veterans whom they are intended to serve and for whom they are intended to provide grants under certain circumstances.
I must say that I am very sorry that the government has not seen fit to accept the recommendation of the committee which sprang from the recommendations of representatives of the Canadian Legion which we considered were sound, responsible and in the interests of the veterans whom the fund was intended to serve. As members of the opposition we are not in a position to move an amendment to this clause when it comes before the committee, but in this case we think that the government should have responded more favourably to the recommendation of the standing committee on veterans affairs in this respect.


Henry Frank Jones: I should like to thank both of the hon. members for the contributions they have made to the discussion on this matter. I might say that serious consideration was given to the views that they and other hon. members expressed in the committee and also to the views of the Canadian Legion with regard to this matter of interest rates. The arguments that were advanced then and have been advanced here are, of course, the same arguments that could have been advanced in 1947 or 1952 when this bill was originally introduced and then amended. On those occasions it is always possible, just as it is possible now, to pick out a type of security and say that this security yields a higher rate than does the security on which interest is being paid by the government under this legislation. However, after the most careful consideration of the point raised it was thought that we should

Army Benevolent Fund Act stick to the original principle which was involved in the setting of the rates of this fund so that continuity could be carried on. That is not the only reason, of course. But the rates as set bear a relation to rates on funds held by the government from other sources and on which the government pays interest rates. I think perhaps it might be useful to recall to the members of this committee that this fund came first, and then the uses of this fund came second. It was not the other way around. When this fund was originally set up, a plan for assisting veterans was not envisaged and then money supplied for that purpose. It happened in a contrary way. The fund existed, drawn from the sources that I have already referred to; and because those funds existed, it was then determined that those funds should be used for the purposes developed by the army benevolent fund.


James Moffat Forgie: May I ask a question? Who determined how this money should be spent?


Henry Frank Jones: It was determined by parliament in 1947. It was determined by the parliament of Canada, by this House of Commons.


James Moffat Forgie: Not by the veterans?


Henry Frank Jones: The purposes are quite similar to the purposes of the R.C.A.F. benevolent fund and of the navy fund also. The purposes came second; the fund came first.
Again I thank hon. members for their contributions both in committee and here to the discussion of this matter. However, I wish to assure them that, after very careful consideration, we feel that a fair and equitable rate of interest is one that is based on the policy which has been carried forward from the time of the inception of the army benevolent fund. Accordingly, I hope the increase which is recommended by the bill will receive the support of the members of the House of Commons.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I must say that I am particularly disappointed that the government has not seen fit to accede to the recommendation and suggestion made by the Canadian Legion. This money does not belong to the government. It is money that has been provided by the veterans over a period of time and for particular purposes. It has been provided for the aid which this fund can give to veterans. Because the money is not government money and because it is being held by the
government, it seems to me that the government should give to this fund an interest rate which would normally be given to money which is borrowed by the government.
I think the suggestion made by the Canadian Legion was a reasonable one. At this particular time when the fund is having just a little bit of trouble in following the actuarial plan which was set up for it, I feel that this is one way of helping the fund to carry on with the good work being done. I feel that this recommendation should have been accepted. I agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation in committee; and even at this late stage I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that maybe it is not too late to give some active and favourable consideration to this suggestion.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Chesley William Carter: May I call it 10.30, Mr. Chairman?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what legislation, if any, will be discussed tomorrow and what the estimates are for the rest of the week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we will take third reading of Bill No. C-77, dealing with agricultural development and then second reading of the bill dealing with the War Veterans Allowance Act, which bill will be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs. Then I think perhaps we should finish the matter we were debating tonight, namely Bill No. C-88, to amend the Army Benevolent Fund Act. After those items are completed, we will then take up the estimates of the Secretary of State. For Thursday, Friday and Saturday I have already announced the departments that we shall be considering. On Thursday we start, by arrangement, with the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Then, if we have not finished with the estimates of the Secretary of State tomorrow, I would suggest that we take the estimates of the Secretary of State after those of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. The third one will be fisheries and then will come public works.


[Stage Direction]
At ten thirty o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.﻿MAY 30, 1961