OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
EDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G., B.A., L.Ph., PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY 1948

[Stage Direction]
____	C.
'✓-G=
of Commons! Bebates
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 3, 1947

[Stage Direction]
Second and final report of special committee on Dominion Elections Act.-Mr. Cote (Verdun).


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. Winters he substituted for that of Mr. Baker on the select standing committee on industrial relations.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. 0. BERTRAND (Prescott) moved: That the seventh report of the standing committee on standing orders presented on Tuesday, July 1, 'be now concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. CAOUETTE:: What are the export prices to persons who 3ell motor ears manufactured by (a) the Chrysler Corporation; (b) General Motors Corporation (c) the Ford Motor Company?


Mr. MAYHEW:: No information.


POSTAL SERVICE-MAIL DELIVERY, R0UYN AND NORANDA
David Réal Caouette: What steps have been taken to establish a . letter carrier delivery in the twin cities of Rouyn and Noranda?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: I should like to give a verbal answer to this question. The twin cities of Rouyn and Noranda, if treated as one postal area, or in other words served 83166-320
by one post office, would have a sufficient number of calls to warrant a letter carrier delivery service, and in the event of that service being established the patrons would enjoy a drop letter rate of postage throughout the whole community served by the one office. Neither the Rouyn public building nor the building housing the Noranda post office is large enough to accommodate the necessary letter carrier staff. The question of providing a new building to take care of the needs of the combined area is under consideration, but progress is difficult due to the uncertainty as to whether the suggested arrangement would be acceptable to both communities. In the meantime we can do nothing further.


POSTMASTERS-SUPERANNUATION
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: il. How many postmasters as of this date are making monthly payments or contributions to the superannuation plan?
2.	Are deductions made from their salaries to provide superannuation?
3.	If so. what is the toal amount deducted each month?
4.	Has any action been taken to make the scheme applicable to all postmasters?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	2,252.
2.	Yes.
3.	810,051.49.
4.	The matter is under consideration.
These answers cover only postmasters of
revenue offices who do not come under the Civil Service Superannuation Act.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. THATCHER:: 1.	Has the province of Saskatchewan or any other province made any application to bring doctors to Canada from D.P. camps?
2.	If so, what decision was made by the department ?


GUYSBOROUGH COUNTY, N.S., MAIL CONTRACTS
Mr. LOW:: 1. Were any mail contracts let in Guysborough county, Nova Scotia, recently?

Business of the Home

2.	If so, on what routes?
3.	Were tenders called?
4.	If so, what were the names and addresses of all who tendered, and the amount of their respective tenders?
5.	Who was the successful applicant or tenderer?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I should make some report to the house with regard to the meeting I had last night in my office with the leaders of the different parties, and the whips. The meeting was called to consider the plan of work for the remainder of the session, and to see if we could come to some agreement as to procedure which would enable parliament to prorogue at the end of next week at the latest.
Hon. members will recall we had hoped it might be possible, following the procedure adopted a couple of weeks ago, to prorogue at the end- of the present week. However that has not been possible, although I must say that the work accomplished since that time under the arrangement then made has been exceptionally good. If hon. members will continue to cooperate as they have during the last few weeks, I believe that with some slight precautionary measures we ought to be reasonably sure of proroguing before the end of next week-although of course the time at which we prorogue rests with the house itself, more particularly with the opposition.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Not entirely; if the right hon. gentleman had been here last night-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have sat both in opposition and on the government side. I know that if it wishes so to do, the opposition can hold up measures for a long time. However, what I wish to inform the house is that a suggestion was made by the government that this week we should sit on Saturday, beginning at eleven o'clock in the morning and continue to six o'clock with an adjournment from one to two o'clock, and that if this were agreed to the government would not suggest further sittings in the morning until possibly Wednesday of next week, if we felt such sittings were necessary in order to conclude the business before the end of the week.
As the house realizes, the government does not wish to bring pressure upon any section of the house. On the other hand we have a

responsibility in respect of the business of the house as a whole, and up to a certain point must act upon that responsibility. I understand hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party, the Social Credit group and all hon. members on this side are prepared to sit on Saturday of this week at eleven o'clock in the morning, and to continue the sitting until six o'clock in the evening. Some members of the C.C.F. group take exception to sitting on Saturday. I am not making a motion today because I do not wish to make this question of procedure the subject of a vote in the house if this can possibly be avoided. What I would ask is whether members of the C.C.F. group, knowing that all the rest of the members of the house are favourable to sitting on Saturday from eleven o'clock in the morning until six o'clock in the evening, would not reconsider between now and tomorrow the position they now take. I believe if a favourable agreement can be reached as to this, so far as next week is concerned it will not be necessary to consider morning sittings until on toward the middle of the week. If that is not possible, and if we find we are not going to make the progress we hope to make, the government will have to consider whether we should not begin morning sittings earlier next week.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, this group has considered carefully the request made. We are of the opinion that we already have morning sittings or their equivalent; that is, we are already sitting the extra two hours which on other years we put in from eleven to one. We do not believe we should put our own convenience before the proper conduct of the business of the house. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) mentioned a minute ago that the Progressive Conservative opposition and members on the government side of the house were agreeable to sitting on Saturday. I would add that they were not agreeable last night either to facilitating or expediting the business of the house. My observation was that it was government members who held up the house for four hours, without accomplishing anything.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: If the hon. member would cut that time in half, perhaps he would be correct.


Angus MacInnis: I am stating the same time as stated by the minister himself last night.


Lionel Chevrier: The reference to four hours which I made was the time taken up by members on all sides of the house, and the hon. member certainly knows that.

Inquiries oj the Ministry


Angus MacInnis: That is what I am saying, too; it was four hours wasted, and the major portion of it was wasted by members on the government side of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Angus MacInnis: My understanding is that there is considerable difference of opinion at least among members on this side of the house-


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Angus MacInnis: -as to whether or not they would like to sit Saturday morning.


Mr. FLEMING:: Speak for yourself.


Angus MacInnis: Well, one member on this side says "hear, hear" and another says ''speak for yourself", which goes to prove, that there is a difference of opinion. There is very little difference of opinion in this group, but I understand the same difference of opinion holds with the Social Credit group.
That is our position. We are quite willing to facilitate and expedite the business of the house when we see that there is an attempt on all sides to do so.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the importance of the question may I ask the Minister of Finance if he will consider, before prorogation, making a statement to the house and country about the situation in connection with American exchange?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: I will give consideration to the question, but I doubt if I can add anything to what I said a short time ago.



HIGH WATER AND FLOODS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works when the report of the government's engineer on the Toronto island floods will be tabled.
Hon. ALPHONSE POUiRNIBR (Minister of Public Works): My information is that we will have it in two or three days.
83166-320J



REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN RECONSTRUCTION OF DAMAGED AREAS IN MANITOBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. In view of the very serious damage to crops, live stock and bridges caused by recent floods in the area around Dauphin, as well as other parts of Manitoba, will the minister state what steps the government is prepared to take, in cooperation with the government of Manitoba, to assist in the work of reconstruction in these flooded areas?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that any representations from the government of Manitoba have been made to the -federal government. If they are, careful consideration will be given to the relative responsibilities.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Will the minister undertake in every way to assist in obtaining priorities on timber and steel for the repair work? A serious situation has developed in that area, and only today I have received requests for help in obtaining priorities.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In respect of disaster in any part of Canada it has been the practice of the department to give the highest priority on requirements for rebuilding. I can assure the hon. member that requests for priorities will receive consideration.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, the other evening the Minister of Public Works stated, when the subject of flags for public buildings was under discussion, that both the Canadian ensign and the union jack were distributed and the caretaker could choose either. On Dominion day no union jack appeared on this building. Will the minister make a farther statement?


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: The other night I read to the committee the policy of the government which was laid down in an order in council passed in September 1945. I stated at that time that the -public buildings were flying the Canadian ensign.


Thomas Langton Church: The Prime Minister said that parliament would decide-
Inquiries of the Ministry


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I
should like to ask either the Minister of External Affairs or the hon. member for Cochrane whether invitations will be extended to all members of the Senate and the House of Commons or just to the members of both committees on external affairs to attend the meeting of that committee to be held on Tuesday morning next?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Although the hon. member had no opportunity to give me advance notice of his question I am glad to be able to say something here about this sitting of the external affairs committee which is to be held in camera, and to which much more importance has been given in the reports published in the press than is warranted.
My understanding was that a feeling was expressed by members of the committee that they would like to have an opportunity of getting frank expressions of opinion from the officials of the Department of External Affairs which they would not feel free to state for publication. It was suggested that that might be done in one of the ordinary meetings of the committee which would be held in camera, as committees of this house frequently have met in camera for the purpose of thinking out loud and without having reports of their proceedings published, When that became known it was suggested that the members of the committee of the other place would also like to have that kind of meeting, and because of the large volume of work to be attended to between now and prorogation it was suggested that the two bodies might meet together.
The question was subsequently put whether other members of either house could attend. There certainly can be no objection to that. As to whether there should be any invitation to other members who might wish to attend, I do not think that is necessary. It has become known that there is to be this meeting in camera where opinions can be expressed without committing anyone to them, where there can be frank discussions of what would appear to be desirable with respect, for instance, to the timing of the deposit of letters of ratification of peace treaties and such matters. I do not think that there should be any invitation to members of the houses of parliament who are not members of the committees, but I am sure that as far as the officers of the Department of External Affairs are concerned they

will not have the slightest objection to any member of this house who is interested being present.


Gordon Graydon: I was not suggesting that invitations should be given out, but I have seen conflicting reports in the press with respect to the meeting that was to be called and who were to be there, and I thought we should have some clarification.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think some of the gentlemen of the press have really attached more importance to this than is warranted. They seemed to feel that there was an implied connection between a session of the committee in camera and the negotiations which have been going on in Paris in connection with the so-called Marshall plan. As far as I know there is no connection whatsoever between them. Had there not been a word said outside of Canada about international affairs for the last month, this meeting in camera would no doubt none the less have been suggested as a convenient way of discussing a little more frankly than one does in a public forum the timing of Canadian actions and the reason for that timing.


Thomas Langton Church: Is there to be any public discussion of external 'affairs in this house this session? This is the 104th day of the session, and there has been none so far. At these secret meetings they just talk about nothing and do nothing.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The estimates of fhe Department of External Affairs will be before the house very soon, and it will depend upon my hon. friend and other members of the house whether there is any discussion.


Thomas Langton Church: Hon. members will not attend a secret meeting; I will not.


John George Diefenbaker: Following the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as a member of the committee on external affairs I want to make it clear that it was not the committee that suggested a secret session. The mystery, if any, resulted from the government's action.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: It was not through government instigation that this happened. As chairman of the committee, perhaps I could state what happened so that parliament may be seized of the exact situation. It was suggested by Mr. Pearson that a special meeting should be held in camera by the external affairs committee at which time information could be given to the members of that committee which would be most

Army Benevolent Fund
informative and instructive. There was never any lead given by the government in that connection.


Thomas Langton Church: The committee should be abolished. It has done nothing all session.



SOIL PIPE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Yesterday the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Timmins) asked a question with regard to the production of soil pipe. His question was as follows:
Having regard for the shortage of soil pipe in the city of Toronto, has the government taken any action to increase production?
Major action has been taken to stimulate increased production of cast Iron soil pipe and fittings during the latter part of 1946 and the first six months of 1947 as follows.
Arrangements are in operation to channel sufficient pig iron to enable the producers to operate at plant capacity. Arrangements have further been completed for a continuing flow of pig iron to meet increased production facilities during 1947. Price increases have been granted to the industry to compensate for increased costs of production.
Assistance has been given to individual producers in obtaining necessary equipment from War Assets Corporation which could not be obtained elsewhere or in time to facilitate early increased production. A submission by a major producer to expand production facilities at their plants for the production specifically of cast iron soil pipe and fittings was approved . and a programme has been in operation since the first of January which provides an incentive bonus on increased production over and above the base rate established as normal production capacity at the end of 1946.
Results of these actions, by way of increased production throughout the industry, showed up early in the year. The total production of cast iron soil pipe and fittings in 1946 was approximately 2,100 tons per month, or slightly over 25,000 tons. The production during the first five months of 1947 averaged approximately 2,800 tons per month, or at the rate of 33,600 tons per year. With further expansion of facilities, it is estimated that approximately 35,000 tons will be produced in Canada during 1947, or a 40 per cent increase over 1946.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 269, to amend the Income War Tax Act.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence) moved the second reading of Bill No. 410, to establish a benevolent fund from army canteen and other service funds.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. CLAXTON:: Mr. Chairman, before
this clause carries I think a short statement should be made. On February 26 of this year I moved for the appointment of a special committee to look into the question of the disposition of canteen funds. Those funds originated through profits made in the sale of various supplies through canteens and through other similar sources entirely related to the Canadian Army. The committee was set up and I think hon-. members will have observed with satisfaction the composition of the committee in that nine of its members had served in the second world war, twelve in the first world war, and three in both wars. This was not the first committee set up to deal with canteen funds. A committee had been set up on August 30, 1941, under the chairmanship of Mr. J. M. Macdonnell, then in private life but now the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. A parliamentary committee was created by resolution of this house on March 24, 1942, and it had a great number of meetings under the genial and efficient chairmanship of the Deputy Speaker who is now presiding over this committee of the whole, the hon. member for Brantford City. That committee made its report on July 22, 1942. Generally speaking, army canteen funds have since been administered by the regimental funds board in accordance with the reports of these committees.
Army Benevolent Fund

The funds with which we are now concerned originated, as I have said, entirely from profits made through the sale of supplies through army canteens. As members know, members of the armed services in most places and in practically all units had opportunities to purchase at low cost additional comforts, and sales, small overhead and low costs led to the accumulation of very considerable profits. Some of these were expended by the units during the war. There is now left in the possession of the government the sum of $8,134,934. It is expected that that will be further increased by an amount of approximately one million dollars, so that the canteen funds with which we are concerned in the present bill total something of the magnitude of $9,000,000, a very considerable sum.
The committee held thirteen meetings. It made a unanimous report on June 12, 1947. It is not unusual, Mr. Chairman, for committees to make unanimous reports, but I think it is rather unusual that a committee should have held all its meetings, as I believe this one did, without any divisions and without any votes. That reflects great credit on the non-partisan spirit of full cooperation with which members from all parts of the house took part in the work of this committee. I think I speak for members of the committee and for members of the house when I say that it was in no small measure due to the tact and skill of the chairman that this very happy result followed.
The report of the committee proposed the adoption of a bill which had been drafted under direction of the committee and which was annexed to the committee's report. That bill is virtually word for word the bill which is now before the house. The government has accepted the report of the committee and puts forward this bill not only as the bill of the government but it hopes with the full support of the committee and of members in all parts of the house.
The bill itself provides for the establishment of the fund and describes the origin of the various sums which go to make up the fund.
By section 4 the bill would establish a board consisting of five members appointed by the governor in council, of whom one is to be nominated by the Canadian Legion and another by the National Council of Veterans Association in Canada, and it contains this very interesting provision:
No member of the board shall hold or occupy a position in the public service of Canada.
It obviously was the intention of the committee that the board should be operated in as independent a fashion as possible, and with a view exclusively to the best interests of the veterans.
[Mr. Claxtond
The bill goes on to create a committee for each province and sub-committees where they are needed. It provides for no remuneration for members of the board or committees but provides for a per diem allowance, and travelling expenses where that is agreed to by the board. Provision is made for the appointment of a secretary whose salary is as set out in the bill.
The important provision, Mr. Chairman, is that made in section 9 of the bill, which reads:
There shall be paid out of the fund to or for the 'benefit of veterans or their dependents or the widows or children of deceased veterans such amounts as the board may from time to time determine.
The purpose of the benevolent fund which is to be established by this bill is that it be administered and paid out for the benefit of veterans and their dependents. Subsection 2 of section 9 lays down certain principles which the board is to follow. These have been prepared by the committee in general terms so that the board will not be hamstrung, but will be guided in the application of the funds.
The remaining sections of the bill deal with matters of procedure. One important provision of the bill is that the board is to report to the minister who is defined as the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Consequently with the adoption of this measure and its enactment, this will cease to be a matter of direct concern to the Department of National Defence with which I am concerned, but will be the responsibility of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. This is in accordance with the policy put forward by the government and approved by parliament, that as far as possible all matters having to do with veterans should be the responsibility of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
As I have said, the report mainly provides for the enactment of a bill, but there is one additional proposal recommending that the government put forward legislation to coordinate the work of the Canadian naval service benevolent trust fund, the army benevolent fund board and the Royal Canadian Air Force benevolent board and establish a committee which would' insure as far as possible that the funds were administered on a uniform basis.
As hon. members are aware, the corresponding fund which came into being in connection with the profits earned from expenditures of members of the Royal Canadian Navy is dealt with by the Royal Canadian naval benevolent board which was created by P.C. 42/10672 on November 23, 1942. The naval benevolent fund was incorporated by dominion charter in July, 1945. The Royal Canadian Air Force benevolent fund is of an earlier origin, in that it was

Army Benevolent Fund
founded in 1934 and incorporated by dominion charter in July, 1944. These two funds have separate boards. It is the recommendation of the committee that as far as possible all these should be administered so as to secure uniform results. I am not speaking for the government on this, but I can assure the committee that that recommendation will have their most serious consideration, and as far as the Department of National Defence is concerned we shall use our good offices to see that as far a3 we possibly can there is close cooperation among the three funds.
The report itself refers to one thing to which I think I should make reference. It
says:
In this connection the committee is gratified to be able to report that, probably for the first time since the termination of world war I, all veteran organizations of national scope in Canada have collaborated in the preparation of a joint brief and have been unanimous in their recommendations.
This result is warmly appreciated. It is also fair to say that the recommendations of the committee are in substantial accord with all the submissions put before the committee, whether by organizations or individuals. According^ it is the view of the government that the bill, having received sound consideration and widespread support, should receive the favourable consideration of the house. Its object is to provide machinery for the careful expenditures of money created by the expenditures of the men and women of the army. It is designed to do that in a way which they themselves would like to see it done; that is, for the benefit of those of their number and their dependents who are in necessitous circumstances. It represents a true spirit of comradeship and an attitude of unqualified cooperation.


Mr. MUTCH:: If I have learned one thing as chairman of the committee whose report is being discussed at the moment it is that if you have something to say you should make it direct and brief. But no matter how important the considerations before us or how great the urge to get through, there is always time to take a moment or two to be courteous and to give expression to that courtesy. If the remarks of the minister as applied to the committee of the whole were justified, and I think they were, then I as chairman of the committee should like at this moment to express publicly to the committee my appreciation of the fine spirit of industry and of cooperation manifested by the members of the committee on canteen funds. If the remarks of the minister directed toward me
were in any way justified, I should like to say publicly that much of the efficiency, expedition and thoroughness of the work of that committee was due to one who is not a member of the committee, the capable secretary who was supplied to the committee, whose interest and knowledge of veterans affairs is the equal of that of any hon. member of the committee, and exceeds that of most of us. It is a bit unusual, but on behalf of the committee I should like to pay a word of tribute to Mr. Burgess, who was an able assistant to that committee.
Since the bill which the committee reported has come before the house intact I do not want to be in the position of placing any logs or stones in the path of its progress. Therefore, again expressing my appreciation of the work of the committee and expressing to the minister the appreciation of the committee for his kind words, I shall allow the committee to discuss the bill.


Mr. BROOKS:: There is not very much that needs to be said regarding the bill. I simply wish to confirm what has already been said by the minister and by the hon. member for Winnipeg South. The committee was unanimous in the report. The work of the committee was congenial. Perhaps that was due to the chairman. I am not going to take away from him any credit which has been, given to him, except to say we all felt that our duty was to do our best for the returned men. I also think that we have learned a lot from the experience of handling the canteen funds of the first great war. We had the experience of having before us as witnesses men who had worked on these canteen funds since the first great war, and they helped us materially.
As the minister said, we also had representatives from the different returned men's organizations. Taking it all in all, there was no reason in the world why we should not bring in a unanimous report. The only matter on which perhaps there was any difference of opinion was regarding the air force and navy benevolent funds. They did not come within the terms of our reference; but as the minister has pointed out, we made a recommendation in that connection. I feel it was the general opinion of the committee that at some future date the matter should receive careful consideration by the government, possibly with the idea in view of placing these funds in the same position as the army benevolent fund, or the bill which is now before the house. Further than that I have nothing to say except that we were
Army Benevolent Fund

unanimous. We feel that the recommendations in this bill are good, that they will redound to the benefit of the returned men, and personally I see no reason why they should not receive the unanimous support of the house as they did in the committee.


Mr. PROBE:: I wish briefly to support the remarks which have been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South and the hon. member for Royal. A good deal of the credit for the work of the committee and the unanimity of the report is due to the fact that the submissions of the Legion and the other service men's organizations were concise and to the point, and based on actual experience of the work of the canteen fund committee following the first great war. There was of course a limitation in the terms of reference to the committee which prevented us from going into the matter of some uniformity of policy with respect to the disposal of canteen funds of the other two service organizations, the air force and the navy. I was glad that the minister referred to the fact that the committee has made a reference to the need for such legislation, and I trust it will not be forgotten, because the service men of all these organizations have an equal right to be considered twenty, thirty, forty or fifty years from now, or until that time when all canteen funds are exhausted.
There is a special feature of this bill which I think should be called to the attention of this committee. There is written into the bill itself a limited guarantee for some educational benefits to the children of needy veterans. These educational benefits are not placed on a competitive or scholarship basis, from the standpoint of academic standing, but rather on the basis of need, and therefore it will make it possible for needy children, especially of the deceased veterans, to receive an education which they might not otherwise be in a position to acquire. If there is one criticism of the veterans' charter it is the fact that while the returned man himself is looked after, and to a limited extent the widows of men killed * in action, we have not held the federal government responsible for the passing on to the child of such education as would likely have been its right had the father lived to provide it.
I am glad it is specifically emphasized in section 9 of this bill that the educational rights of the children- of needy or deceased veterans will be looked after. There is another thing that deserves commendation. There was some discussion as to whether or not we should have permanent force personnel on the continuing boards to administer this fund. We have 
here a regulation which prevents employees of, the federal government from taking an active part in the work of administering the fund, and I believe that provision will get the support.of the public generally. The citizens of the country other than members of the civil service will be in- a position to administer it.
There is one minor point which escaped me at the time it went through the committee, and the minister might consider it at another time. I refer to the interest rate of two and one-half per cent which is mentioned in subsection 3 of section 3. There may have been an explanation for it in the committee at the time, but if so I have forgotten it. The fund, I submit, should earn the same rate of interest that the government generally pays for its money.
Beyond that, the members of our group are in hearty agreement with the general scope and provisions of the bill. It looks to me as though we shall be able to administer the $9 million odd left from the canteen fund operations to the benefit of the veterans and their families as a whole.
Mr. CHUiROH: I am glad that the soldiers of all parties Who sat on the committee have presented us with such a commendable bill. I happened to be on a similar committee that was set up after the last war and I moved a resolution at that time that the fund should be administered according to soldier population, so far as the sold-iers were concerned, in the various provinces equitably. Looking back, I am sorry that the act that was then passed did not afford the public protection that is written into this bill, namely, public control over the whole fund. I think there was some criticism of the manner in which the fund was provincially administered, particularly in one or two areas in Saskatchewan. I am pleased to note that the auditor general has control of the fund by audit, but I should like to see one of the clauses, that relating to education of veterans' children, made a little less stringent, because many of these veterans' children work very hard in the summer to earn their fees. In the last few days we have seen in the -newspapers pictures of some of them engaged in different forms of rather hard work.
On the whole, I wish to congratulate the committee and the house on the good work that has been done in connection with this bill. I think we ought to extend the principle and have similar cooperation in other directions. It would enhance the reputation of parliament before the people of the country as far as the conduct of the country's business is concerned.

Army Benevolent Fund


The CHAIRMAN:: Do I gather from what has been said that hon. members are agreeable to all the clauses?


Mr. TUCKER:: With the exception of section 9. It is desired to ensure that the dependents of deceased veterans shall have the same rights as if the veterans were alive. It is therefore intended that a motion be made that subsection 1 of section 9 be amended by inserting the words "or former dependents" after the word "children' in line 21 on page 5 of the bill.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall sections 1 to 8 carry?


Mr HARKNESS:: There is one question I wish to ask with reference to section 3. Does this list of amounts credited to the fund include all the amounts which the committee considered should be included? I ask that because, going over it, I could not remember whether all the various funds which we thought should be credited to the account had been included in this list. As far as subsection 3 of section 3 is concerned, the amount for kitchen by-products is only for kitchen by-products which were secured overseas, and the amount for kitchen by-products in this country apparently is not there. I may be incorrect in that regard, but that is according to my recollection. Could the minister say whether everything we thought should be included has been included in the list?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Perhaps I might be allowed to say a wrord. In the final report of the committee there was not included a recommendation with respect to kitchen by-products in Canada. After a discussion we had with the associate deputy minister, and1 the explanation that was made, the matter was not pressed. We did press for the inclusion of the whole of the sum overseas which had been designated1 with the regimental names, and for which claims had been entered at the time payment was made. I can say to the hon. member that the bill introduced today, with the exception of the amendment that was made a few moments ago, is in point of fact exactly the same bill that the committee finally recommended. The byproducts from the camps in Canada are not included in the bill, for reasons given in the committee.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I think the committee which dealt with this question has done an excellent jab. I have read1 the minutes and followed the proceedings of the committee, and I think they approached the question in a very fair and practical manner. I support 83166-321
the commendatory remarks made by hon. members who have spoken previously. Two features of the bill appeal to me particularly. One is the provision for a decentralized administration; the provincial committees and subcommittees will be close to the problem, and needs. I think that will make for successful administration of this act and of the fund. I am pleased also to see some provision for the education of veterans' children. In British Columbia for a good many years we have had an act which provides grants for the assistance of veterans' children, and it has done a great deal of good in these cases. I am particularly delighted with the provision of the bill.
Sections 1 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Section 9 as amended agreed to.
Sections 10 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to provide pensions or other superannuation benefits for senior appointees of the Department of External Affairs serving outside Canada and the wives, widows and dependents thereof.
Gordon Graydon: Would the Secretary of
State for External Affairs mind giving us some explanation as to the purposes and objects of the proposed measure?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	I would not like
to precipitate a debate at this stage, I think it would be more practical to have the debate upon the bill, when hon. members will have it in their possession and can see just what we propose to do. The purpose of the legislation is to deal with the position of a small number of persons who have been brought in from outside the public service to head missions abroad. Our public service has developed so rapidly that it has not been possible to provide as heads of missions everywhere persons who were in the service and who were entitled to the benefits of the Superannuation Act. A few such persons have been appointed under conditions similar to those w'hich prevail in the selection and appointment of judges, and the purpose of this bill is to provide pensions which in a general way would be somewhat similar to

External Affairs

those provided under the Judges Act but which would be contributory whilst the pensions under the Judges Act are noncontributory.
There are two or three other provisions in the bill to take care of the continuation of the pension rights of those from other branches of the civil service who are made heads of missions in foreign countries. The bill will deal with a small number of eases, of which I can give the details when we deal with the bill, to show how each section will apply to them. If it suited the convenience of hon. members to allow the resolution to pass, the bill could be distributed at once and would be brought on for discussion as soon as it can be reached. A full discussion may be held on the second reading, when the terms of the legislation would be before hon. members.


Mr. G. RUSSELL BOUCHER (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, from the explanation given by the minister I understand the main purport of the bill is to provide superannuation for those of our senior servants in the Department of External Affairs, principally diplomats-
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Exclusively diplomats, serving outside Canada.


George Russell Boucher: -who have been appointed from private life, not having served previously in the public service. I take it that where such appointments are made from the civil service itself an individual appointed to a diplomatic post would have served a number of years in some department of government, during which he would have contributed to the superannuation fund, and that he would be permitted to continue that contribution and eventually to receive superannuation. On the other hand as I see it this bill is being introduced to bring under the superannuation act persons who have not formerly been employed in the government service, so that they will get superannuation benefits similar to those received by people who have won distinction and promotion through many years of public service.
Take the case of a man who assumes a high post in the diplomatic service, at the request of the government. I would say he would be required to have a vast experience in the type of work he is undertaking, and to be in close touch with and sympathy for government policy. When such a person is appointed from outside the service I do not see why his compensation while in the service should not be sufficient to compensate him for leaving his position in industry or whatever it may be and accepting such an appointment at the

request of the government, instead of putting him in the station of those who, by actual contribution, have earned their right to superannuation. Such an individual would be put in a better position than a man who has been in the service, by virtue of the fact that he has not contributed to the superannuation fund, and also by virtue of the fact that he may be in the diplomatic service for only a short time. During his service he may have little opportunity to contribute to the supers annuation fund; yet after his service he will be permitted to retire with superannuation benefits for himself, his wife and his family. That may be merited in many cases, but I think it would be a very bad example for this parliament to establish, for many reasons. In the first place a man who has qualified himself in his own business for such an appointment should be a man of substantial means, and as such would be in a preferred position as compared to those who have spent long, faithful years in the public service. Again, while today we in Canada are very much in favour of superannuation and retirement allowances, we must realize that as yet comparatively few of our people have the opportunity to obtain superannuation, even on the basis of contributions made by themselves. One of the greatest inducements our civil servants have is the security they establish when they are permitted to pay into a superannuation fund, to which a contribution is made 'by the government. To let a new class come in who hold senior positions, positions which carry with them great dignity, honour and respect, and which require the exercise of a real national spirit, is in my opinion not a proper development of the principle of superannuation. To my mind this type of servant, while their numbers may not be great, cannot be looked upon as urgently requiring superannuation. With the social reform legislation now envisaged, and the need for social improvements among the needy, I do not believe we should place on a pedestal perhaps higher than ever before those to whom this measure refers.
My understanding is that if a person in this group accepts a diplomatic or ambassadorial post abroad he is provided with a substantial salary together with a living allowance and the other emoluments which go with a post of the kind. If he is not, then he should be. There is no reason why we should be niggardly in the compensation we give those who undertake positions carrying with them high responsibilities and requiring special qualifications. It is an entirely different approach, however, if we say to men of that type: "If you take this job with its meagre pay-" and we may

External Affairs
call it miserable, or insufficient, or any other term which would seem appropriate-"we are going to give you permanent security by way of superannuation for yourself and your dependents for all time." I do not believe that is a proper procedure. The people of Canada are not looking to parliament to create special privileges for a limited number of individuals.
I have the highest respect for those who accept diplomatic posts to serve their country abroad, and I recognize the fact that they must have the highest qualifications. But I do not believe we should give them lifetime security in this fashion, rather than by adequate compensation while they serve. I can easily envisage an appointment to a high office in the diplomatic corps-a political appointment, if you like-involving a prominent and a capable man. After serving only a short time he could retire from that service, reassume his previous vocation and perhaps earn an added income because of the experience he had gained, the contacts he had made, and the business relationships he had established while in the diplomatic service. Yet this man, upon returning to his earlier vocation, would have security thrust upon him through the beneficence of the government of Canada, rather than through the position of merit he may have earned while in the diplomatic service.
A condition of this kind is not fair to those who serve in the Department of External Affairs and other branches of the government service and who in those years have acquired wide experience and knowledge, but who for many years have been paying for their own superannuation. Placed alongside these civil servants would be this new group of those from outside the service who on retirement would be entitled to superannuation benefits, for themselves and their dependents for the rest of their days. There may be individual cases which merit support, but in my view those cases should be compensated by way of salary while in the service rather than by superannuation as a means of security for the rest of their lives and those of their dependents. While a few cases should receive treatment of this kind, I believe that in adopting this principle we would be setting a bad example, and in the eyes of the rest of the service would be establishing a preferred class who would be given special treatment.
I do not believe the people of Canada want their members of parliament to set up special legislation establishing superannuation for a limited few when there are so many more who need extra help to a much greater degree.
83166-321J


Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the resolution before the house. Hon. members of this group do not intend to enter the debate on the resolution stage, chiefly because of the insufficiency of the information set out in the resolution. In view of the fact however that certain statements have been made by hon. members on both sides of the house, I should like to indicate our desire to reserve our opinion until we see the actual details of the bill.
We agree there are cases in which special consideration should be given. In the main however I believe we must follow the point made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher) with respect to the superannuation plan among civil servants. We should have regard also to the extent to which we in parliament are prepared to go in respect of superannuation benefits and old age pensions for Canadians generally.
With regard to the insufficiency of information in the resolution, I respectfully suggest to the government that this is a practice which ought not to be continued. Beauehesne's Rules and Forms states definitely that care should be taken in the drafting of resolutions preceding money bills to cover all the points. Only a few days ago the committee of the whole got into quite a dilemma because of a resolution drafted along lines similar to this one. The government in drafting resolutions should take care to give more details, and particularly to fix in the resolution the maximum amount of money to be spent under the bill based on the resolution.
Having said this much may I add that we reserve the expression of our opinions until the bill is before us.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. St. Laurent thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 412, to provide superannuation benefits for senior appointees of the Department of External Affairs serving outside Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Civil Service Act to provide, inter alia a
Civil Service Act
[Stage Direction]
statutory basis within the act for veterans' preference in appointments to the civil service; to provide for payment of increased salaries to the chairman and members of the civil service commission; payment of annual increases in rates of compensation to temporary employees; and for the establishment of certain temporary positions, appointments thereto, and remuneration thereof.
, ; Mr. BROOKS: Does the minister intend to give an explanation on the resolution stage?
Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: Like my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), I do not wish to institute a debate at this stage if it can be avoided, and if the discussion can more conveniently take place on second reading. The main purposes of the bill are to provide veterans' preference for veterans of the second world war and to carry it through into the Civil Service Act, to make provision for the remuneration of temporary employees and also for the remuneration of members of the civil service commission. There are other minor amendments to the act, but those are the three chief features of the bill that is to be introduced.


Mr. RENE HAMEL (St. Maurice-Lafleche) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, before this resolution is concurred in, I should like to say a few words. I do not intend to discuss it at great length, but I believe it expedient to make a few remarks in regard to the civil service. The object of this resolution is to increase the salaries of the chairman and of the members of the civil service commission. I believe that the whole problem may be gone into at this time.
In the first place, I wish to point out the status of French Canadians in the civil service. I shall then show the consequences, try to place responsibilities for such a situation, and finally propose certain reforms. In regard to the civil service, the situation must be envisaged on the basis of population. The 1941 census, volume IV, page 334, places the population as follows: total population 11,506,655; population of French origin, 3,483,038; population of English origin, 2,968,402; population of Irish origin, 1,267,702; population of Scottish origin, 1,403,974. Two facts are apparent from those figures: first, that the French-speaking population constitutes the largest ethnical and homogeneous group in the country; second, French-speaking citizens represent over 30 per cent of the total population of Canada. With those figures in mind, let us see what is the proportion of Frenchspeaking persons in the civil service. Two sources of information are available for this purpose. The report of the Montreal chamber

of commerce which was submitted, I believe, to the Gordon commission and to the members of the cabinet, and a statement of the so-called "committee of five" which appeared, last week, in the Journal.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but during the debate on this resolution he must confine himself to the general principles of the resolution now before the house. The hon. member is now bringing up a case which deals with a certain racial group. He will undoubtedly have the opportunity to discuss special cases when the bill is before the house or the committee; he may then base his arguments on certain clauses. I do not think he should bring up special cases at present; he should confine himself to the general principles of the resolution. It is my duty to call the attention of the hon. member to this fact. If I were to allow him to continue, I would be forced to allow the same privilege to any other member who would like to discuss special cases pertaining to the civil service commission. I therefore suggest that the hon. member should confine his remarks to the general principles of the bill.


René Hamel: Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to abide scrupulously by the rules of the house. The object of the resolution is to increase the salaries of the members of the civil service commission. I wish to prove, Mr. Speaker, that the civil service commission has been a total failure since its inception. Now, how can I prove my point without quoting figures. However, if Your Honour, refuses to allow me to proceed, I shall have to submit to your ruling inasmuch as your authority must be respected.


James Horace King: The resolution before the house does not allow the hon. member to dis cuss whether or not it is advisable to have a civil service commission. The resolution reads as follows:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Civil Service Act to provide, inter alia, a statutory basis within the act for veterans' preference in appointments to the civil service; to provide for payment of increased salaries to the chairman and members of the civil service commission; payment of annual increases in rates of compensation to temporary employees; and for the establishment of certain temporary positions, appointments thereto, and remuneration thereof.
Specific needs of the commission are therefore dealt with. It has often been repeated that when a resolution is brought before the house, hon. members can only speak of the general principles on which it is based. However, I wish to draw the hon. mem-

Civil Service Act
bers attention to the fact that he will have the opportunity of making representations when the bill is brought before the house, as the minister stated a moment ago. I would therefore ask the hon. member to limit himself to the general principles contained in the resolution. If he wants to deal with specific cases, he should wait until the bill has been referred to the committee of the whole.


René Hamel: Mr. Speaker, my only intention is to deal with the principle of the resolution. I am opposed to increasing the salary of members of the civil service commission and, as I must base my judgment on facts, I may say that it has been derelict in its duties, and I shall prove it. I do not want to be disagreeable and I would gladly await another occasion; however Your Honour knows very well that in these dying days of the session, when we are sitting eight hours every day and expecting to sit ten and even twelve hours daily, I can hardly take the risk of the matter coming up while I am away. But, my main reason for continuing my remarks is that I believe them to be in order. If I am ruled out of order, I shall evidently be relieved of all responsibility in the matter.
I want to show, Mr. Speaker, that the civil service commission has failed, because it has not been able to give the Canadian population representation in the civil service-which at the present time constitutes a fourth power -based on that fundamental democratic and British principle of representation according to population, and has violated since its inception another great principle on which our charter is based: no taxation without representation.
Now, since Your Honour prefers it that way, I shall keep my statistics and give them later. However, I will mention a few figures. There are, at present, 112,658 employees in the civil service. According to a statement published in the Journal, only ten per cent of that number is made up of French Canadians. That is to say, French Canadians should hold 22,000 more positions than they do at present. What does it represent in actual dollars? It means that between 35 and 40 million dollars, which should be paid French Canadians every year, go elsewhere. The situation is particularly noteworthy in the higher grades. I am asking hon. members to my right, my compatriots and all other representatives in this house what they would say if at a certain time French-speaking members were excluded from the cabinet? If it is considered that it is fair that French-speaking citizens be represented in the cabinet, if it is fitting that
French-speaking citizens be represented in this house on the basis of population, that Frenchspeaking citizens be represented in the judiciary according to population-


James Horace King: Order. I am very sorry, but I cannot allow the hon. member to continue his speech which is completely out of order.
May I remind him once more that he will be given an opportunity for making certain representations when the bill comes before the house. But his remarks are absolutely irrelevant to (he resolution now before us.
(Text):


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is to provide, among other things, a statutory basis within the Civil Service Act for veterans' preference in appointments to the civil service. We all realize that one of the most important benefits that can be granted to a returned soldier is a preference in appointment to the civil service. I think all returned soldier bodies have recognized1 that since the last war, and the returned soldier has become very jealous of this preference.
I want to ask the minister a question with reference to the recommendation that was made by the veterans affairs committee last year and which will be found in No. 51 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence. It reads:
That the present civil service preference for disabled veterans who served overseas be extended to cover all employment, both temporary and permanent, by the House of Commons and by dominion government agencies, inclusive of crown companies.
We have discussed in this house on many occasions the question whether the veterans' civil service preference should be extended to crown companies. I think that the returned soldiers today feel that these crown, companies are the thin end of the wedge which is getting rid of the returned soldier preference, and considerable bitterness and resentment is felt by returned soldiers on this account. There may be some justification for setting up these crown companies. I am sure there is in some oases; in others we feel that possibly there is not, but whether there is justification for them, or not, these crown companies employ civil servants and it is felt by the returned men that these civil servants should be recruited from the ranks of the returned men as far as possible. Yesterday when the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) was speaking on the Canadian Commercial Corporation it was brought ou.t that this particular crown company employed 184 men, of whom only 56 were veterans. It would seem to me that if
Civil Service Act

the veterans' preference was applied to crown companies we would have a much larger percentage than that.
There is another .point I wanted to mention. I understand that quite a number of civil servants enlisted during the war without the consent of their departments.


Colin William George Gibson: That is being covered by this act. The same provisions are being extended to them that were extended to those who resigned from their departments during the first world war.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Up to the present time I know that these .men have not been reinstated in the civil service with the semorit3r to which they- felt they were entitled. I am pleased indeed to hear from the minister that that situation is being corrected/. I shall say nothing further about it at the moment.
The third matter on which I wish to speak is the merchant marine. As the minister will remember, it has been discussed in the house before. Speaking in the house yesterday on another bill I said that the merchant marine is generally considered by the people of Canada, as it was considered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his speech the other day, as being on the same footing with the army, the navy and the air force. Here, then, it seems to me is an opportunity for the minister to do justice to these men of the merchant marine by giving them a preference in civil service appointments. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) yesterday was very much grieved, according to his statement, that nothing had been done for these men. The circumstances had been unfortunate. I feel that it was the intention of the veterans affairs committee to see that these men received their due. Unfortunately we thought that a bill would be brought in by the transport department, which is looking after this matter, but noticing practical was done. I suggest to the Secretary of State that this bill be amended to do justice to that extent at least to the men of the merchant marine.
Another matter I would bring to the minister's attention concerns returned soldiers who have written an examination for appointment as postmaster or some other civil service position and who, after the examination has been held and the successful candidate named, have been informed that the position was being opened up again, for different excuses. One that I would refer to particularly is the excuse that another examination was being held because all the returned men were not

back home. This excuse does not seem altogether right to me. The case I have in mind has to do with the appointment of a postmaster in Milltown in my own province. The examination was advertised and a good number of returned men applied and took the examination. One of their number was sucJ cessful, and understood that he was to get the appointment, but apparently that was not satisfactory to certain powers that be in the constituency. Apparently he was of the wrong political stripe, if I may put it that way, and a demand was made for another examination. The excuse which was offered, and I contend it was an excuse, was that all the returned men were not back home. I would ask the minister if it has been the general practice of the department to w'ait until all the returned men were home before these vacancies were filled, and if second examinations are held, after a candidate has passed successfully the first examination, on the ground that all the returned men were not back home. In this particular case the examination was held on December 3, 1946, and it seems to me that by that time there would be at least sufficient returned men back home to fill a position of this kind.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: If I may interrupt my hon. friend, we endeavoured as best we could to meet that situation which my hon. friend very properly brings up. I arranged to visit the troops in Holland and we went through all the divisions and other corps organizations with two representatives of the civil service commission, who held examinations in the field, so that those who were there would not feel that they were being ignored in civil service appointments by the examinations being held before they got back home.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am not criticizing the Department of Veterans Affairs. I am satisfied that they did what they could and what they felt was necessary. What I do criticize is the fact that after these examinations are held)-and in this particular examination there were ten returned men who applied-


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I just called the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Hamel) to order because he was discussing an individual case. I would ask the hon. member to discuss only the general principle of the resolution. He will have an opportunity at some other stage of the proceedings to discuss individual cases.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. In this particular case I was asking if it were [DOT] the general principle to act the same way in

Civil Service Act
other cases. It was the general principle on which I wished to get information. I knew of this particular case and I have not the least doubt that there are a great many more. If there are, I feel that it is an unjust way in which to treat these men. There is nothing further that I wish to bring to the minister's attention; I hope he will be able to answer what I have said.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to read the portions of the resolution which are pertinent to the remarks I wish to make. First, it says:
That it is expedient to present a hill to amend the Civil Service Act to provide, inter alia, a statutory basis within the act for veterans' preference in appointments to the civil service.
What the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) has said I am in agreement with and will not repeat. However, there is one matter that I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. If the veterans' preference has been generally applied as the government indicates, then I point out that very few veterans serving in the civil service who were entitled to the preference have been, made permanent.
The other day I had occasion to ask the following question:
How many veterans of the first great war entitled to veterans' preference and who entered the government service on or after the 19th July, 1927, are recognized as 'being permanent and subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act.
The answer that I received I have summarized, and it shows that of the total number of veterans who are in the civil service and who have been appointed within the last twenty years, only 5,577 are recognized as permanent and subject to the Civil Service Superannuation Act. The departments and the numbers are as follows: Department of Agriculture, 250; Public Archives, 1; Office of Auditor General, 8; Civil Service Commission staff, 5; Comptroller of Treasury, 33; Department of External Affairs, 8; Department of Finance, 1; Canadian Farm Loan Board, 7; Royal Canadian Mint, 6; Department of Fisheries, 44; Governor General's secretary, 3; Department of Insurance, 4; Department of Justice, 192; Department of Labour, 7; Unemployment Insurance Commission, 331; Department of Mines and Resources, 255; Department of National Defence, 92; National Film Board, 3; National Harbours Board, 4; Department of National Health and Welfare, 39; Department of National Revenue, 1,088; Post Office Department, 1,202; Department of Public Printing and Stationery, 62; Department of Public Works, 228; Department of Reconstruction and Supply, none; Air Transport Board, 1; National Research Council, 11; Department of the Secretary of State, 4; Department of Trade and Commerce, 154; Department of Transport, 524; Department of Veterans Affairs, 1,010; total, 5,577, which indicates that of the number of veterans who have joined the service since July of 1927 a very small proportion have been made permanent. Something should be done to end as far as possible the temporary classification which in certain cases lasts for many years, not because of inefficiency or neglect of duty on the part of the individual but apparently because of neglect on the part of officialdom somewhere. The difficulty, of course, is that when these veterans are denied permanence they are also in consequence denied superannuation. Finally when they are allowed to accept superannuation they have to pay back for the time in which they have been in the service. That has proved exceptionally costly and difficult.
I have before me one case, and it is representative of many, in which a temporary civil servant finally was allowed to come within the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act. For instance, the protective staff were denied that privilege for many years. Finally when they came under the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act they had to pay contributions for the years in which they were not within the provisions of this act, and also the interest thereon, which in many cases has become almost prohibitive. Let me give an example of the figures in that connection. One of these men was required to pay back-


Colin William George Gibson: I must interrupt the hon. member. The matter dealing with the superannuation act has nothing whatever to do with the Civil Service Act.


John George Diefenbaker: It is part of the picture.


Colin William George Gibson: I understand that another bill will be before the house dealing with the Civil Service Superannuation Act. The hon. member can discuss the matter then.


John George Diefenbaker: Since the matter dovetails in with the argument I am advancing I decided to deal with it now rather than have to bring it up again on the other bill. If the minister will permit me to complete it, I think he will understand the pertinence of it. The amount that this man was ordered to repay was $2,998.34. He continued to pay a
Civil Service Act

monthly amount for a period of five years and three months, during which time he paid $1,364.


James Horace King: I must remind the hon. member of what I said to the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). I would ask every hon. member to confine his remarks to the general principle of the resolution which is before the house, and not discuss individual cases. Moreover the remarks should be relevant to the resolution. I do not believe that the remarks of the hon. member are relevant.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker,, I certainly could not quarrel with that decision. What I am trying to show is that even if the veterans' preference is applied., these veterans today, by reason of the long delay in permitting them to qualify under the superannuation act, are placed in a difficult if not impossible position. However, sir, agreeing entirely with your ruling, as I do, and of course accepting it, I will simply point out that having paid that amount, the total credit allowed the veteran is only $400. I suggest therefore that when the bill based upon this resolution is introduced, something should also be done to provide for the removal of too great a load on veterans who, having the preference, will have been appointed to permanent positions in the civil service.
Yesterday I dealt at some length with the general question of the extent to which the veterans' preference had been applied, I pointed out then that even since the end of the war, on the first of May, 1945, 31,000 out of 75.000 appointments have not had the veterans' preference.


George James McIlraith: I have not had an opportunity of seeing the return. Does that figure include, females as well as males?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. I pointed out frankly yesterday, and I repeat, that it does to the extent of 19,969. One of the objections I have received from veterans is that, out of work as they are, and able to do some of the work that today is being done by females recently appointed, they have strong reason to object to the fact that an opportunity is not given them to holdt some of the positions that are vacant and are being filled by young women who are not veterans.
That these positions are not unimportant is borne out by this fact.
In appointments made by the civil service commission from May 9, 1945 to April 30, 1947 there were 66,078 with a salary under $2,000, there were 4,464 in the salary classification between $2,000 and $3,000, and there were 1,242 in which the salary paid was over $3,000. When it is understood, as this reply

indicates, that 11,094 appointments were made of males to whom the veterans' preference did not apply, I suggest that the time is overdue when a bill based on this resolution should become the law of the country. Today it is the law under order in council, and now, if this bill passes, it will be the law of the country, and it should not be departed from to the extent we have seen in the last two years.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Were these appointments made in al'l departments of government, or in one particular department?


John George Diefenbaker: All the departments are referred to in the return, but the return does not indicate which departments have been the offenders. The Postmaster General the other night absolved himself by his answer, so that it indicates that while in the Post Office Department there were a great many appointments-


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member will admit, I think, that he is discussing the subject in too great detail. He should confine himself to the general principle set out in the resolution, which is:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Civil Service Act to provide, inter alia, a statutory basis within the act for veterans' preference in appointments to the civil service; to provide for payment of increased salaries to the chairman and members of the civil service commission; payment of annual increases in rates of compensation to temporary employees; and for the establishment of certain temporary positions, appointments thereto, and remuneration thereof.
I would ask him to discuss the general principle of the resolution. If he wishes to discuss the details of it and to ask questions, he should wait until the proper time comes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that if there was any offence, I was the offender, because I asked the hon. gentleman a question which he was graciously trying to answer. I apologize for having transgressed the rules of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister was
most kind to make that explanation. I was trying to show how necessary it was that the principle of the resolution should be carried out and the extent to which the application of that principle is overdue so far as civil service appointments are concerned. The principle of this resolution has been the law under order in council up to the present time. This merely translates that principle into legislative form, if the bill based on the resolution is passed. My reason for giving these details is to point out that

Civil Service Act
in spite of the fact that there was an order in council providing for veterans' preference, it has not been properly lived up to. I hope that when the house passes a law to establish this principle, that law will be observed to a greater extent than the order in council which has been in effect and which was designed to put into practice the principle enunciated in the resolution.


George Russell Boucher: 1 wish to keep strictly within the confines of the resolution, and I shall be brief. The resolution is divided into three or four parts, the first being to provide for the payment of increased salaries to the chairman and members of the civil service commission. I hope that, in effecting that, the government will go a little further and do some modernizing and revitalizing of the civil service commission generally. I believe the Gordon report tabled some time ago contained some constructive suggestions, though some of them would not in my opinion increase efficiency. I believe further that the government is very much behind in bringing the commission up to that point of efficiency which we have a right to expect today.
The resolution provides for the payment of an annual increase in rates of compensation to temporary employees. I should like to discuss that point for a few moments. I do not know whether the bill covers the point I am going to make, and in case it does not I would urge the government to put it into effect. During the past five or six years, owing to wartime regulations and controls, a great many employees were hired temporarily by the civil service commission to do a specific war job, without annual increases, superannuation benefits or permanent status. I am sure the people of Canada are very grateful to the men who did that work. Most of them were incapable of serving in the forces overseas; they could not qualify for such service, or they would not have been working here. They undertook employment with the government and gave diligent service, many of them working an hour extra every day and many extra days during the year. If they had been members of the permanent service in peace time they would have had leave of absence, annual holidays, sick leave benefits, superannuation benefits, and very likely permanent appointments.
I am sure every member of parliament is frequently consulted, as I am, by individuals who have given such service, many of whom have taken no sick leave at all during the past six or seven years, though some of their comrades did; few having taken their
statutory holidays, as they normally would; a great many having worked extra hours every day, while seeing some of the senior men more fortunate in that they received war supplements. I have before me at the moment, for instance, the case of a friend of mine who was rejected several times when he applied for enlistment in the armed forces and who took a position in a government department, at a fair compensation. He has worked almost every hour of every day during the past six years. He took no sick leave. On June 28 of this' year he was given notice that he could take his eighteen days' annual leave, after which his employment would be terminated. I believe these cases were dealt with by the civil service federation in a brief submitted to the government last April, and I do hope the Secretary of State has taken that brief under consideration and that some of the recommendations contained therein will be embodied in the act to be founded upon this resolution.
It seems to me that after people have served the government for five, six and even seven years it is not sufficient to tell them that after their eighteen days' statutory holidays, with no leave of absence and no more notice than that, their services are no longer required1. I do believe they should have at least one month's separation pay, or in any case that much notice. I believe we should: treat these people as they were treated after the first great war, by an order in council passed) in 1918, and as I understand they are being treated by the British government; that is, that they should be given credit if they have not taken their sick leave, to the extent of fifteen days for every year they have been in the service, in addition, to a separation allowance. In many cases these officials put in a great deal of overtime, with no extra compensation whatever.
During the war I believe the civil service worked overtime willingly, and the work of these men was satisfactory and efficient during that period of stress and strain. Some of the permanent employees who worked overtime received handsome war supplements while many of the others, much more in need of compensation, received no supplements at all and no compensation for the many hours of overtime they put in. Now that peace has come, a great many of these people who did their work well are being released from the government service. That is quite proper if they hold positions to be given to returned soldiers who have the preference and the permanent employees who are returning. It is probably quite reasonable to expect that many
Civil Service Act

of these people should be released from the service; I think perhaps that should be done on an even larger scale, but when temporary employees are released I believe they should be given compensation by way of some consideration for their extra work and overtime; and I do not think it is enough to say, "You are entitled to eighteen days' holidays this summer, so take that time and don't come back. We don't need you any more." I do not think that is treating the civil servant fairly. I certainly hope the minister has taken these points into consideration in preparing the bill that is to be brought in.
I do not want to dielay the house longer at the resolution stage, because when the bill is brought in we may find these things provided for.


John Oliver Probe: Mr. Speaker, I feel that we might have postponed the discussion which has taken place until we had the bill before us, but in view of the fact that a number of statements have been made I think perhaps a word is necessary at this time.
We are all primarily concerned about the efficiency of the civil service, and I think that should be the criterion by which whatever we do in regard to the first part of this measure should be examined. As far as the civil service preference for veterans goes, by their service to their country the veterans themselves have demonstrated that they have real ability. As to how this preference should be measured, recently I read something in regard to the system adopted by the British government for qualifying applicants for appointments and the way in which the civil service preference for veterans is measured there; and I should be glad if the minister could see fit to make some statement as to what the department has done with respect to studying closely the points basis in connection with the appointment of veterans to the civil service, instead of an absolute preference for those who have had overseas service. Undoubtedly modern techniques of personnel management make a very considerable use of such things as aptitude and mechanical tests of various kinds, depending upon the nature of the position for which candidates are being examined. I believe much of the abuse of the veterans' preference, which sometimes is definitely ignored because the head of a department wants a man of a certain type and will not take anyone else, could be avoided if we had some form of point rating based on a preference for overseas service, for service which resulted in a wound, and possibly for service during which the individual had no opportunity to get overseas for

reasons over which he had no control. I should like the reaction of the minister to that suggestion, either now or during the debate on second reading of the bill, because I believe the British system has considerable merit.
In introducing the measure a few moments ago the minister made one statement which I heard with some gratification, though he did not enlarge upon it. He said those civil servants who had enlisted without the consent of the heads of their departments, or perhaps contrary to the wishes of their departments, were to be completely reinstated with respect to salary schedules, seniority and so on. I should like him to indicate, if he will, whether that applies to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as well as other members of the civil service. I presume, as he indicated, there will be something in the bill to cover that point.


Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my desire to detain the house by making any observations on the resolution. Hon. members of this group feel that whatever contribution we may have to make or criticism we may desire to offer may be made when the bill is being considered. For that reason, and in the interests of making progress, we have deferred consideration of these matters until that time.
Mr. E. B. McK'AY (Weyburn): Mr. Speaker, I have only a brief word because I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken that the resolution need not be discussed, because an opportunity will be afforded on second reading. However before the bill is introduced I should like to say only a few words because I note that the measure is to provide veterans' preference in appointments to the civil service. This provision has been in effect for a considerable number of years.
I feel however that the principle of preference should be extended to all veterans who were on active service, whether they served, in Canada or overseas. Many Canadian veterans on active service never left the shores of this country, but it was through no fault of their own that they were unable to proceed overseas. Many of them made several applications to go overseas, but that privilege was denied them. I believe the preference should be based upon service to the country at home and abroad, and that the government should give consideration to giving preference, first, to overseas veterans, and1 secondly, to veterans who were on active service in Canada.
In my view those who served in isolated spots in Canada, either in the army or in the

Criminal Code
air force, or those who served in territories contiguous to Canada, were just as necessary to the service of the country as were those who proceeded elsewhere.
I hope the minister will give consideration to this suggestion, and that some provision will be made in the bill for it.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


René Hamel: On division.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who said that?


René Hamel: I did.
Motion agreed to on division, and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 413, to amend the Civil Service Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 364, to amend the criminal code.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have only one or two observations to make in connection with this bill, the principle of whioh is that amendments to the criminal code are necessary. As we shall have an opportunity of discussing the several sections as they arise. I shall not make reference to them at the present time.
May I reiterate what I have said on previous occasions, that as it is now constituted the criminal code is composed of many incongruous sections, and a very considerable portion of it is no longer applicable to present-day conditions. For that reason I suggest that in his position of Minister of Justice the minister could perform no more useful piece of work than at the earliest possible day to proceed with the recodification of the criminal code so as to bring it up to date, to remove many of the sections which are obsolete in effect, and also to amend the punishments, many of which have continued down to the present day from the year 1830, about which time cruel and unnatural punishments were done away with.
The recodification of our criminal code is long overdue. It was done last in 1892. Since
that time psychological and penological advances have been made which in considerable measure necessitate an early alteration in the law with respect to insanity, and also with respect to the principles applicable to responsibility.
In connection with the question of responsibility, as lion, members know, anyone under the age of seven years is incapable of committing a crime, while in respect of those between the ages of seven and fourteen before an accused person can become liable the onus is placed upon the crown to establish knowledge as to the nature of the act. Two hundred years ago, when those principles were established, physical and mental age were believed to be synonymous. In recent years advances in psychology have shown that many persons of the physical age of more than fourteen years have the mental development of a child of seven years or less; yet they can be convicted of crime.
There is one other matter I would bring to the minister's attention. Having regard to the number of cases going to the courts of appeal on the question of the admissibility of statements and confessions, I am surprised that something has not been done to render uniform throughout the country the general principles applicable in this regard. We have only to point out two recent cases, namely the Dick case in Hamilton and the Sears case in Windsor, where persons had been convicted of murder, such convictions having been based upon statements the accused had made. On appeals those statements were held inadmissible for the reason that police officers failed to follow principles established in a multitude of cases with respect to the admissibility of statements. Many people place strong reliance upon the admissions of accused persons, but experience has shown that persons do confess even though they are entirely guiltless because under certain circumstances they have been taken into custody and have not realized the consequences.
In Saskatchewan some years ago a man was charged with the murder of a little girl. He confessed and went into complete details as to how he committed the crime, which had been preceded by criminal assault. He came up for preliminary hearing and) his statement went in which revealed him as a person who had committed one of the most sordid crimes. in the history of our province. He was brought to the place where the crime had been committed, which happened to be in the constituency of the hon. member for Humiboldt, and he reconstructed the crime. After he had been in custody awaiting trial some one read of his
Criminal Code

confession and could not understand why he had confessed to the murder when for two weeks before and two weeks after the date in question he had been two hundred, miles away. This was brought to the attention of the attorney general of Saskatchewan and the accused man was released, even in the face of his confession. Later another man was arrested and confessed, but by reason of his suffering from insanity at the time of the commission of the offence he was sent to the North Battle-ford mental institution where he remained for some ten years. Some weeks ago he was found fit to stand trial but was found not guilty because during the interval the star witnesses for the crown had disappeared or were not available. That indicates the danger of confessions extracted from accused persons.
The minister may say that we have rules. True enough, general rules have been adduced from a variety of cases, but we have not the uniformity of rules that they have in the United Kingdom, where in 1912 Lord Alver-stone and a committee of judges enunciated rules which must be followed by police officers all over the United Kingdom before proceeding to interrogate persons against whom there is a suspicion of guilt. Whether he can incorporate it in the criminal code or not, I think the minister would be making a splendid contribution to uniformity by having judges in various parts of the country join together and arrive at certain fundamental conclusions as to admissibility of statements so that there will be uniformity in practice.
You cannot maintain respect for the law when one court determines that a person shall die for murder and another court determines that because a person happens to appeal he is not guilty of the offence charged because wrongful evidence was admitted. I mentioned the case in Saskatchewan because it is an authenticated case which indicates that persons do confess under interrogation regardless of whether or not they are guilty. You may ask why that man confessed. The reason given was that he was in Portage la Prairie and thought it would be a way to get to Macoun, where he had lived, without having to pay any fare. He not only got back; he had to remain in gaol for a period of time, and but for gratuitous circumstances he would in the ordinary run of events have been executed for that murder.
My second suggestion is that uniformity should be established on another ground: when men are convicted of murder and their convictions are quashed on appeal, respect for the administration of justice is undermined. It is difficult for the average laymen to understand how such things can happen. The fact 
that death would have followed in the cases to which I have referred but for the court of appeal indicates the necessity of proper rules being established.
There is the other side of the question. Guilty men should not be permitted to escape because of mistakes made by police officers because of the fact that no police officer in this country, no matter how well versed he may be in criminal law, can state with certainty what the law is and what course he should follow before a statement which he secures will be admissible.
There is one other matter in connection with which I had hoped there would be an amendment to the criminal code. May I say that since becoming Minister of Justice the minister has been moving forward in making these amendments with commendable speed- one does not expect him to do everything within a few months of becoming the custodian of the king's conscience in our country. I had hoped that the minister would remove the sections dealing with the alternative penalty of imprisonment which today is levied on those convicted of minor offences and who, when they are unable to pay the money penalty, must go to gaol. It happens frequently that men come before the courts charged with petty offences such as being drunk and disorderly, and a fine of $5 or S10 is imposed with an alternative of 30 days in gaol.


Mr. LESAGE:: It is always the same men who are accused of drunkenness.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not understand what my hon. friend means by that. It is a fact none the less that when a penalty by way of fine with the alternative of imprisonment is imposed for a petty offence or petty acts of mischief, the inability to pay should not be a passport to a penal institution. I have referred before to its having been abolished in the United Kingdom. There the right to imprison as an alternative rests with the magistrate, who imposes the alternative of imprisonment when and if he ascertains after examination that the man is in fact able to pay the monetary penalty.
It is true enough that today many magistrates extend the time contrary to the provisions, and they are sometimes criticized by provincial attorneys general for following that course. I suggest that the minister give consideration to removing those sections which provide for the alternative of gaol under the circumstances that I have mentioned. The stigma of gaol stays with a man throughout his life. No matter what he does he is always faced with that circumstance, that some place, somehow, he served time,

Criminal Code
With regard to the sections in question I refrain from mentioning any of them until we get into committee, at which time I shall direct my attention to one particular section which I believe contains a principle that is dangerous in the extreme.


Mr. DAVID CROLL (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few comments to make on this bill which I think the members will give a wide measure of support. I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen'baker) that an act sudh as the criminal code must inevitably get out of date as a result of judicial decisions, so that it is necessary from time to time to tighten it up.
I am not going to discuss the sections, but there is in the bill a new principle which comes as a rude awakening to the Canadian people because for the first time the bill recognizes that there is in Canada a definite criminal class. We have liked to think of ourselves in the past as a law-abiding people. We are, but for the first time we are admitting the truth, what is even better than that, we are facing up to the truth, and I wish to commend the minister for the remedial action he is taking.
For a variety of reasons, not least of which has been our antiquated penal system and our outmoded methods of prison therapy, there has grown up in Canada a class of habitual criminals. Members of the house have been calling attention to this for many, many years, and even in this parliament we have called attention to it from time to time. The Archambault report emphasized the inadequacy of our penitentiaries to prevent repeaters and insisted on proper classification and segregation of the prisoners. General Gibson has agreed with that report, and the minister is now taking some definite action. Although this amendment to the criminal code is only a small beginning, it does attack the problem in the weakest part of our penal system. Here we are screening out and detaining in separate custody those criminals whose criminal habits are so deeply ingrained that they are persistently leading a life of crime. The action that the minister is taking is a definite, progressive step. Now that we have both the Archambault report and the Gibson report as guides, we can clean house from top to bottom. The segregation of habitual criminals will make ever so much easier the task of regenerating the younger inmates of our prisons, many of whom, as the example of the Borstal system has shown, will respond to intelligent and patient handling.
The minister said, in speaking in the house, that in the main we were following the United
Kingdom legislation on the same subject. I consider it well worth while to point out that there are some important differences in this bill from the British bill. In the United Kingdom the accused must be over thirty years of age. In the present bill the age is fixed at over eighteen years. In the United Kingdom the limit of preventive detention is from five to ten years. Here it is indefinite and it may very well be for one's natural life. In the United Kingdom it is necessary to obtain the consent of the director of public prosecutions. A similar office in this country would be the attorney general, but the bill does not provide for that. In one other important aspect this bill differs. In the United Kingdom, provision is made for counsel for anyone who is charged as an habitual criminal, counsel to be provided by the state at the request of the accused. No such provision is made in this bill.
I want to touch on another aspect that was touched on by the hon. member for Lake Centre and it is an important matter, the one dealing with voluntary statements. The spy trials, the Dick case in Hamilton and the Sears case in Windsor have pointed up the confused and highly unsatisfactory state of the law on this matter. Under the law as it at present exists there have been grave miscarriages of justice against the person on trial and sometimes in favour of the person on trial. Unless the confusion is cleared up, we may soon find that no statement made by an accused person or any person under arrest will ever be admitted as evidence at any subsequent trial. That may be very good. That perhaps puts the onus where it belongs, but I think it is time for the highest legal authority in the country to clarify that situation and for all purposes attempt to make the practice uniform.
There are other parts of this bill which appeal to me. One part of the bill recalls last year's Tobias case, where a Toronto storekeeper was shot to death in cold blood by five youths who escaped the death penalty because the jury decided that the young killers had not intended to cause his death. I think the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) discussed this case last year. This case and1 all the attendant publicity constituted a travesty of justice.


Mr. MacNIOOL:: It certainly was.


David Arnold Croll: I am glad to see that the present amendment will prevent it from happening again. From now on under this bill, to kill a man in such circumstances will be murder, and if this amendment comes too late to afford any satisfaction to the dead
Criminal Code

man's family I hope it may be some consolation at least to them to know that his death was the cause of remedying a serious defect in our criminal law.
I wanted to say one word about what I thought was a distressing spectacle which occurred recently in the investigation of a young woman's death at Bracebridge. I think we can all regret the personal tragedy involved, but just as regrettable was the public exhibition which occurred. Somehow in our courts we seem to have borrowed a little from the United States. What does not appeal to me is the three-ring circus that seems to be an instrument of justice over there finding its way over here. I think any parent who read the newspaper accounts of bobby soxers thronging the courtroom must have been filled with disgust. I do not know what can be done to prevent this sort of side-show happening in the future. I should like some direction from the judicial authorities which bars children from court proceedings of this kind. I think they see enough of it in the movies. They should not be allowed to witness these tragedies which unfortunately occur all too often in real life.
I commend the minister for bringing in this bill at this time. I join with the hon. member for Lake Centre whole-heartedly in saying to the house that more progress has been made in the department in recent days, not only with respect to judicial matters, but also with res.pect to penitentiaries. We have a great deal of confidence that the minister will bring into effect many more of the recommendations of both the Archambault and the Gibson reports, so that we shall not find it necessary to use this new section dealing with habitual criminals.


Mr. F. E. JAENICKE (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, we need only to discuss the principle of the bill now before us, but I find that there are thirty-four principles involved. I may say that I more or less agree with all of them and commend the minister for bringing in the amendments to the criminal code.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the [DOT]remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). I have always had great respect for his knowledge not only of: criminal law, but of criminology in general which he has gained in his experience as a distinguished criminal lawyer in my province.
As I say, there are thirty-four principles involved in this bill, and1 we can discuss them in committee. I think they are all commendable and should be supported; but there is one principle contained in section 18 which is something revolutionary, I may say, in our

criminal law, and has been revolutionary in any other country where it was first introduced. I agree that an habitual-I might call him an incurable criminal-should be put in a place of safety so that he will not be able to do any more damage. I would consider an incurable criminal on a par with a mentally incompetent person. Criminals who persist in committing crimes, in spite of their previous punishments, are, in my opinion, mentally defective as compared with ordinary law-abiding citizens who accept our moral code, which is reflected in our criminal law as reasonable and necessary. The difficulty is to establish who is an habitual or an incurable criminal. The royal commission presided over by Mr. Justice Archambault devotes a chapter to the subject. They recommended an amendment to the criminal laws which is now before the house.
The amendments proposed by the minister are substantially the same as those proposed by the Archambault commission. There are a few differences, which are only procedural, but I think there are two vital differences. The Archambault commission recommended that the trial of an habitual criminal should be by a judge alone, regardless of whether or not the criminal was convicted by a judge and jury. The bill before us proposes that the same court which tries the criminal for the criminal offence should also be the court to decide as to whether or not the convict or prisoner is an habitual criminal. I have not made up my mind as to whether or not the recommendation of the Archambault commission or the bill before us is the better method. I always favour the principle that a man, if he desires to be tried by a jury, should be tried by a jury. Offhand I would say that the amendment before us is better than the recommendation of the commission.
Then, the amendment provides that the facts to be produced at the trial of a person who is tried for being an habitual criminal are, first, of his criminal habits; second, of a criminal mode of life, and, third, that there must be three previous convictions under which he could have been sentenced to at least five years imprisonment. Perhaps the minister might take into consideration that a fourth fact might have to be established before the man could be convicted as an habitual criminal, namely, that there should be some facts on his mental attitude toward the accepted standards of morality. Perhaps the minister would consider some amendment to section 575B to that effect.
There is another important difference between the recommendations of the Archambault report and the bill before us. The bill

Criminal Code
proposes that in order that a man may be tried as an habitual criminal there must be the consent of the attorney general of the provinces. I do not think I favour this particular section, because it tends to produce different practices in different provinces. In order that there may be uniform pvactice, I think the consent should be obtained from the commissioner of penitentiaries rather than from the attorney general of the province. After all, the commissioner of penitentiaries has the record of the particular prisoner. His consent should be obtained rather than that of the attorney general of the province, because it is my opinion that this will produce more uniformity of practice in this connection. The last subsection of section 18 states that the minister shall review the cases every three years. An amendment might be put in here stating that the minister ought to act upon the recommendation of the commissioner of penitentiaries.
As I mentioned in the opening sentences of my short remarks, the state of mind of an habitual criminal is somewhat equal to a defective mind, and I hope that the minister will soon see to it that one of the assistant commissioners to be appointed is an expert along that line, an alienist, as I mentioned yesterday. If that is done, then I think we might be more successful in working out the amendments now before the house and they will be of real benefit in connection with our whole criminal administration.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: There is one question I should like to place before the minister and the house, namely, the alarming increase in Canada in moral offences against children. I believe that that increase has taken place in all of the provinces; certainly it is so in my own province of British Columbia.
I have had different petitions requesting that some action be taken at this session to amend the criminal code to meet this situation. For example, one petition was signed by a large number of people from one of the junior high school parent-teacher associations, in the city of Vancouver, urging that the criminal code be so amended as to deal adequately with moral offences against children, regardless of which section of the criminal code these charges come under. I have had further representations from another parent-teacher association containing a resolution passed by the provincial convention of parent-teacher associations. At that convention there would be representatives of parentteacher associations from all over the province, and this is the suggestion made by such provincial convention:
Resolved (1) that representations be made to the federal government recommending that necessary legislation be enacted to provide for sentencing offenders against public morals where those offences are due to a psychopathic condition, to preventive treatment and detention in a separate institution provided for that purpose.
(2)	That representations be made to the government of the province of British Columbia recommending that all sex offenders (offenders against public morals) have medical and psychiatric examination before being sentenced in order to obtain, before disposition, an understanding of the personalities of the offenders.
(3)	That in view of the many protests concerning the number of light sentences imposed on moral degenerates, we make (a) representations to the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General that adequate psychiatric treatment be provided for such offenders and (b) to the Minister of Justice that adequate provision be made in the criminal code for retaining in custody these offenders until the treatment of the prisoner has proven sufficiently satisfactory that he may be safely returned to society.
Apparently under the present law many of the people committing criminal acts of this kind are sentenced, serve their time, are turned loose and commit the same crimes again. That happens time after time. Certainly something must be done to meet the situation. Just this week I received a Vancouver paper reporting an attack on two small girls. The father of one of the girls summed it up very well, I think, when he said:
"I don't know. It's got me beaten," the eleven-year-old's father said this morning. "This sort of thing seems to be getting worse all the time and something has got to be done about it. But what I don't know."
I had hoped that there would be some amendment this year, but I can find nothing in the bill as presented to the house that meets the situation. There is some change in section 260 of the code, but that does not really meet the situation to which I have referred. I hope that when the minister speaks he will explain why it is that the government is not making a move at this time to cope with this very serious condition.


Mr. RODNEY ADAMSON (York West):: I notice in this bill reference to motor car accidents, and penalties against drivers have been in many instances considerably increased. I have no objection to that at all if it will decrease the tragic number of highway accidents all across the country every year.
The question that I wish to raise at the moment is this. It has been found in the United Kingdom and in other countries that increasing the penalties for infractions of the various highway acts, and increasing the penal-
Criminal Code

ties against operators of motor cars, did not in the main have the effect of decreasing accidents on the highway. The main purpose of this legislation is to prevent such accidents.
I see there is a clause in the bill increasing the penalties for stealing motor cars. That is an excellent and necessary step. For leaving the scene of an accident the penalty is aiso increased. It appears to me, however, having studied some of the insurance records, that a great percentage of the highway accidents are caused by a very small percentage of drivers. It has been said that eighty per cent of the accidents are caused by some ten per cent of the drivers.
I suggest that some consideration should be given to preventing the drivers from operating motor vehicles after the third or fourth accident. I realize that it would be difficult to enact such a provision in a statute or in the criminal code, but a recent accident caused the tragic death of someone very close to a member of this house. Before the trial took place, the driver of the car was operating again and was actually involved in another accident. The jury in both cases brought in a verdict of not guilty. The evidence adduced was that this driver had actually caused four accidents, two of which had been fatal; yet no penalty was imposed on that driver and the jury in both cases failed to register a conviction.
I feel that increasing the penalties for infringements of the law in connection with motor cars is necessary, but some further study should be given to the case of the driver who repeatedly has accidents. A man is not guilty unless he has been found guilty by his peers, but in the bill we have the repeating criminal clause, and we also have the other problem of the driver who has repeated accidents. It is one of the most serious situations we have to face on the highway today.
To increase the penalties is probably a good thing, but you run into this psychological fact, that a very stiff penalty may result in juries not wishing to convict because to do so would be to impose a heavy mandatory penalty on the driver. I know that is so in a number of cases where the attitude of the jury frequently is, "That is the sort of thing I might have done myself." I have had jurymen tell me their decision was based on that sort of reasoning. As I say, I do not know what could be added to the criminal code to overcome that kind of thing, but we have a small number of drivers who habitually cause accidents. Perhaps they are psychopathic cases, the same as the habitual criminal, but apparently there are some people who are incapable of driving

a car without causing accidents. If some consideration could be given, after a driver has had three or four accidents, even though convictions may not have been registered, to preventing that man from continuing to drive I believe the accident rate would be greatly decreased.


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister ot Justice):: Before the motion is carried-


James Horace King: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -I should like to express my sense of indebtedness to the hon. members who have taken part in the debate for the suggestions they have offered and the interest they have shown in the improvement of the criminal law.
The bill before the house contains a fairly large number of important amendments proposed by the government, but a great many other suggestions have been made to the Department of Justice and, upon examination, have been rejected. I am mot at all sure that if they had been brought before the house they would have been rejected by the membership of this house. Opinions would differ as to their efficacy, and as to the desirability of enacting them. In this field of legislation judgment plays a very large part. It is most difficult to know whether to embody certain suggestions in the form of amendments to the criminal code and propose them to the house; as I say, it is a matter of judgment as to whether or not they really would make an improvement in the code.
Some important matters have been mentioned in this debate. One is the question of whether imprisonment in default of payments of fines should be possible, where the person convicted is unable to pay a fine. As a matter of fact I had the officials of the Department of Justice prepare a series of amendments to the criminal code which would carry into effect roughly the provisions in that respect of the criminal justice administration act, 1914, of Great Britain; but I felt that wTe should not enact those provisions in this country until the whole criminal code is examined with a view to ascertaining whether changes should not be made in the penalty sections themselves. I listened to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), and I gather that is what he suggests; that the penalty provisions of these sections themselves be changed. We have a great many sections where a fine is provided and imprisonment in default of payment of the fine. If we were to enact a provision that the person convicted

Criminal Code
need not go to jail if he is unable to pay a fine I am afraid a great many persons would rapidly discover that they could commit certain offences with complete impunity. Therefore a provision of that kind, which roughly speaking is the provision of the British legislation, should not be enacted until we examine the sections themselves with a view to possibly revising the penalties. For instance, perhaps many of those sections should be changed in this way, that at the discretion of the court there be a fine or there be imprisonment. If that were the case the prospective offender could not say in advance for sure that he could commit the offence with impunity. I hope I have made that point clear to the house, and that is my reason for not proceeding with changes of that kind. I think the matter is well worthy of consideration, but only after	thorough study is given the
penalties imposed by the criminal code, which, I must say, are not altogether consistent.
Another important matter that has been mentioned is whether some attempt should not have been made to enact law relating to the admissibility of statements by an accused. I am willing to look into that matter, and I must confess that up to this moment I have not looked into it at all thoroughly.	I have been going on the
assumption that these situations arise from time to time where difficult points seem to come before the courts, that if just a little time is given they are settled by the courts of ultimate jurisdiction, by the final courts of appeal; and that when they are settled by the courts that is sufficient and better than for parliaments to attempt to cover by legislation matters which are extremely difficult. I must say I thought the law was fairly satisfactorily settled on the question of the admissibility of these confessions, but recently I am told there are differences between the courts. I would hope that by the process of judicial decision the points would be settled in such a way that legislation would not be necessary.
Then the hon. member for Lake Centre suggests that the whole criminal code should be revised, and perhaps that is true. As the years go on, I think a thorough-going recodification of the criminal law of Canada becomes more and more necessary. It is just a question of judgment, again, as to the time when that will be undertaken. It will be a colossal task when it is undertaken. If the commissioners who undertake that task spend as much time in considering the pros and cons of the desirability of making an amendment to each section as I have spent on these few sections, it will be a very
long task indeed. It is so hard to say what penalties ought to be, and so hard to say what should be constituted as offences in the field of criminal law.
Then the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke) made some suggestions about a certain section of the criminal code, as did the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), and perhaps I can discuss those suggestions when we come to the consideration of that section.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) has brought forward the important question as to what should be done about sex offenders, and he has asked why the government has not introduced some amendments in the criminal code to deal with that situation. The reason is that we must get a little more information about what would be effective. I have undertaken ,to read some articles with respect to this matter, dealing with sex offenders, and one of the best articles is one entitled "Sexual Offenders." It is written by W. Norwood East, M.D., F.R.C.P., who was special consultant to the royal navy, and was formerly His Majesty's commissioner of prisons in England and Wales. It is to be found in the Journal oj Nervous and Mental Diseases, an educational journal on neuropsychiatry, in the issue of June, 1946. Appended to this issue is a bibliography of books and articles on the subject.
It is a field in which there is much disagreement. There are various schools of thought. The officials of my department, particularly General Gibson, have been pursuing this subject with the Department of National Health and Welfare in an effort to get from them some conclusions upon which people can now agree.
There are those who think psychiatry is not the whole answer. Psychiatrists, of course, may do much good. There are not many of them in Canada, and, indeed, not very many in the United States. We are beginning to bring them into the penitentiary system of the country to see what, we can find out, and to learn what is practical.
If hon. members would read these articles and the articles to which reference is made they would see at once that there is no agreement- as to just how far a country ought to go. It might be that we should construct certain institutions which would be more in the nature of hospitals than prisons, staff them with psychiatrists and then take the word of those psychiatrists as to when the offenders convicted of these offences should be released. Immediately that opens up a large question and provokes considerable opposition as to whether, in addition to taking steps with
Criminal Code

respect to habitual offenders, we should also take offenders who are not necessarily habitual and place their liberty in the hands of psychiatrists.
In many instances they cannot be sure. Let me quote from one article by Doctor East, in which he quotes from another article as follows:
The extremists who see in psychiatry the sole and ultimate solution of sex crimes claim that most if not all, of these offenders suffer from some individual mental disorder which should be treated by psychological individual methods. They want the psychiatrists to decide once and for all which individuals are treatable and determine how long their treatment should last. They want the doctors to decide definitely that they are cured or else pronounce them definitely incurable, as if it could be predicated that every sexual offender would fit into one of two cubbyholes for the rest of his life.
The writer of that article is skeptical as to whether that can fee done with certainty. On the other hand, I believe considerable progress can be made, and we are trying to get as much information on the subject as we can. However we are not in a position to introduce an amendment to the criminal code prescribing preventive detention for sex offenders for indefinite period's, when we are not prepared to state for sure that we can say when they should be released again.


Howard Charles Green: Has consideration been given to increasing the penalties?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot say that consideration has been given to increasing the penalties. But I am under the impression that that is not the solution of the problem. I do not believe that that type of crime is committed by persons who are keeping in mind the penalty involved.


Howard Charles Green: But they would be out of circulation that much longer.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is true that they would be out of circulation that much longer. But,
. there again, whether the state would' be justified in taking that action with regard to persons who are not habitual offenders I do not know.
I think it is quite justified in taking action of that sort with regard to habitual offenders.
The hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) referred to an important subject, namely the question of driving motor cars by persons who are intoxicated. This is a matter of increasing importance. With the increasing amount of liquor being consumed' in Canada, the increasing drink bill of the Canadian people, the increasing numbers of motor cars on the highways and the increasing number of accidents, parliament should take any

steps it can which would be effective to prevent the causing of accidents or deaths on the highways.
Much thought has been given to the matter without, I must admit, very, great results in the 'bill. The penalties for hit-and-run drivers have been increased. That is a peculiarly unpleasant sort of offence. We thought we would1 be justified in recommending an increase in the penalty. On the other hand, we did not think we would accomplish anything by increasing penalties for drunken driving. At the ipresent time the penalties for drunken driving are seven days or thirty days, as the case may be. I, personally, do not think that raising it to fourteen days or sixty days would act as a deterrent.
There again I believe that many of those persons convicted of drunken driving dread the seven days or the thirty days in gaol just as much as they would the longer periods. If we make the detention longer magistrates and courts become increasingly reluctant to make convictions. In some cases they are reluctant now to convict. So we turned our attention from penalties to definitions, and considered how best we could define intoxication. The present definitions could possibly be made more satisfactory. The ordinary definition of intoxication in relation to drivers is that degree of intoxication or of being under the influence of liquor which renders the driving of a car dangerous to the public. This means that if the person were permitted to drive, the car it would be a dgnger to the public.
That is accepted by most of the courts. Therefore there did not seem to be much to be gained by trying to extend' that definition. It is almost impossible to say that a man is intoxicated if he has had a drink we will say, within one hour, two hours, three hours or four hours, because the variation is so great. It would be extremely severe to make it an offence to drive an automobile while under the influence of liquor. The courts have ruled that a person is under the influence of liquor after he has had a drink. The influence may be quite slight, and it hardly seems sufficient to make a criminal out of a man who has had a drink. So we abandoned that.
We gave consideration to the reversal of the onus in some cases. The best section that I could evolve, and which I want to put on record for the consideration of members, is this:
Provided that whenever a motor vehicle is involved in an accident evidence that the person driving the said motor vehicle acted at or about the time of the accident in a manner indicating that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, shall be prima facie evidence that the said person was intoxicated.

Criminal Code
I am not recommending it at this session, but if in the course of time it is found that we have to do something, from what consideration I have been able to give the matter this is the most practical amendment I can suggest if an amendment is to be made to stiffen the section. The proposed amendment has much to commend itself, but it also has much against it. I should like those who are interested in the subject to give it some consideration between this and the next session. I may say that we have had strong representations to the effect that we ought to go quite far in amending the section. I have not gone very far, as will be seen when the section is reached; what I have done is to try to offset the decision of the courts with regard to one particular phase of the matter which will be explained when the section is reached.


Howard Charles Green: Is that section 3?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Section 10.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the minister
elaborate on the Bracebridge case, the particularly revolting case which was referred to by the hon. member for Spadina?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think the general rule is that an inquiry may be held in camera. It is the duty of the presiding officer-I think a coroner would have the same right, although I am not sure-whether a judge or other officer, to do what is right in that regard. I am not familiar with the case mentioned by the hon. member for Spadina, but I do know that judges often hear cases in camera if there is sufficient reason for doing so.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.	*
On section 1-Imprisonment to be served consecutively.
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, if this is the best bill the government can bring down on this 104th day of the session regarding law reform, then we might just as well realize that there is no law reform proposed in the said bill. The bill is a disappointment to me. You cannot discuss the principle of the bill because there is a different principle in each clause. Each clause deals with a different subject matter. I am disappointed if this is the best law reform that Canada can get after being twenty-five years behind the times.
One section deals with accidents, but it offers no effective means cf preventing accidents. The bill does not deal with some of the most important problems we have. We have had no opportunity of discussing the bill
on second reading, and for that reason I do not think the minister will object if I make a few remarks in connection with the bill.
This bill is a disappointment to the chief constables' association, to the bar associations of the country, to the magistrates, to the judges and to the police officials who are enforcing the law. It would be better if the Attorney General of Canada would enforce his own statutes, and not leave their enforcement to the attorneys general of the provinces. As I see it, these amendments will not prevent any further accidents. You are going to have a lot of trouble. When you go over the bill you find that it absolutely forgets some of the main principles involved in law reform, or road accidents that cause death from the motor car, the abuse of which is one of Canada's greatest scandals.
We should have a complete revision of our criminal code every ten years, but I do not think there has been one since it was first passed. Is this the best law reform that the members of the two old parties and the other parties to my left can bring about? This bill of reform is not in accordance with the principles of real law reform which they have in England. There is nothing in this bill to prevent imprisonment for debt. Our gaols are filled with people, some of them soldiers, who cannot afford to pay their fines. Nothing is done about that in this bill. The summary offenders act was adopted in the mother country twenty-five years ago. Before the war, half of the prisons in England were closed as a result of time given to pay fines under the summary offenders act there.
Our newspapers are filled with details of accidents every day, but so far as these measures are concerned, we might as well meet in secret for all the public know of what is said here. It will be noticed that the bill contains some mention of the payment of fines, but that will have very little effect. The only thing to do is to adopt the same principles of law which have been in effect in England for twenty-five years. This minor change in the principle will not keep people out of gaol who have not the money with which to pay their fines. Some of our gaols are filled with these people, notwithstanding what has been said.
In these days the motor car is the cause of many deaths. Thousands of people are injured on our highways and the amendments proposed will have very little effect. I can find very little cure in these amendments for the problem of the hit-and-run driver, one of the most beastly types of murderer you can find. This is the man who runs away and leaves a child on the pavement. This is the
Criminal Code


Stanley Howard Knowles: We should have a lot
more like her in the house.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not know about that. She might make an excellent judge. My colleague the hon. member for Davenport used to be a learned justice of the peace. Judge Cohen of Toronto was a good justice of the peace who became a magistrate. As a matter of fact he was one of the best magistrates we ever had in Toronto, and I have the authority of the late Colonel Dennison for that. He gave most excellent -and efficient service at no cost to the city. He was a most patriotic, reasonable -and painstaking man. I have heard some of the lawyers say that he was the best magistrate they ever appeared before. My good friend, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher), when a fine law student, learned a lot from Judge Cohen. I understand that at one time he went to get a search warrant, and Judge Cohen called his attention to the code and told him he was not entitled to a search warrant; that if he issued one to him he would be personally liable. That just goes to show that it is not necessary to be a lawyer to make a good magistrate. You, Mr. Chairman, are an able lawyer; you have had vast experience. Some of the best magistrates we have had in our province have had no legal training at all. I hope that during the recess of parliament the minister will be able to study the situation sufficiently so that he will be able to give us a better bill next session, one that will commend itself to the wisdom and the judgment of the country along the lines I have suggested.
I believe this is not the kind of law reform which we should have. I believe that we should have a consolidation of the code every ten years, and a judicial committee at once to consolidate it, along the lines I have suggested.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.	.
On section 3-Causing a disturbance.
John George Diefenbaker: This new section
constitutes a departure from every principle of criminal law in so far as causing a disturbance is concerned. As a matter of fact, over all the years, under British common law and in Canada, under common law and then under the code, never before has it been
Criminal Code

an offence to create a disturbance in any place other than in a public place. I submit that this section is not very well drafted. It provides for the definition of a dwelling house by reference to section 335 of the criminal code, which is in part VII, which states in the headnote:
Offences against rights of property and rights arising out of contracts, and offences connected with trade.
Actually what is taking place is that a section is being used as a definition section that is in another part of the code altogether, although that part is in no way applicable to the part in which section 222 is to be found. The new section reads:
Any one who causes a disturbance in any place other than a dwelling-house as defined in paragraph (g) of section three hundred and thirty-five, by screaming, shouting, swearing or singing or by being drunk or by impeding or incommoding other persons shall be guilty of. an offence...
If a person happens to be on his own land and screams and if anybody happens to hear it who is not located on a public highway or in any other public place, this section makes it an offence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can he scream in the House of Commons?


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact this section could apply to the House of Commons. If a member of the House of Commons becomes noisy and disturbs the sensibilities of other hon. members-and on occasion all of us do that-he would be guilty of an offence under this section. That shows the danger of drafting a section designed to prevent one wrong and thereby substituting an offence in a different situation which was never contemplated by the amendment. My hon. friend has pointed this out. There can be no' question whatever that any hon. member who today does anything that disturbs any other hon. member could be brought before a court of this country and charged under this section.
I shall tell the committee the reason for the section. Some eighteen or nineteen years ago one Benson was charged with disorderly conduct in a public place, to wit, a restaurant. He was found not guilty because a restaurant is not a public place. Public places are places where all of us as citizens have an inherent right to enter. In order to make a person liable for creating a disturbance in places like that, the law officers of the crown have so constructed this section that incongruous results will follow therefrom. The more I look at the section, the more impossible it becomes. On consideration, I can understand why it is that in the United Kingdom,

with their centuries of experience, have been very careful to maintain that no disturbance can be created in other than a public place. I suggest to the minister that if this amendment is passed in its present form, no matter whether a person is noisy in his own place or in some other place-


Mr. FRASER:: At a ball game.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, at a ball game; that is how it is drafted here-an offence is committed. It was never intended that an offence should be created under those circumstances. I should like to hear the minister discuss this important matter. It is not a simple amendment as is indicated by the explanation. "Public place" is removed. The doing of these things in a public place has always been the essence of the offence. I think it is a case of indifferent draftsmanship designed to get around one difficulty and, having got around that difficulty, created another more serious than that it was intended to cure.


Gordon Graydon: Out of the frying pan into the fire.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. That is possibly the best description of it. I know something of the situation as it is today under that section, "public place" being defined as it is in the Benson case. But I would point out that at some time a situation will arise and. a charge laid under this section which will render this house subject to considerable ridicule. I would suggest to the minister that the matter be re-submitted to the law officers, so that we do not under this section create a new type of offence, because certainly we are not intending to create these anomalous conditions by this section. When, however, the matter comes up for interpretation before the courts in the future, our ideas and intentions will not be taken into consideration. The words themselves will determine what we intended to convey in drafting this new section.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I should like to add a word to. what the hon. member has said. I, too, find it difficult to determine what the purpose is in amending the law in this way. I am under the impression, that these vagrancy clauses a.re severe enough. I happen to have had a little experience under section 238 in little country places where I come from. We have had a great many such cases. Many trivial cases have come before the courts under section 238, a great many cases that are much too trivial to come before the courts. I have always found section 238 (f) as it stands broad enough to include anything of a criminal nature which may constitute a nuisance. I do

Criminal Code
not think the offence should be broadened unless there are very good reasons therefor. I would urge the minister to give us the reason for which the amendment is sought. Is it urgent? Is it considered advisable to have this enlargement at the present time?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think the draftsmanship of the section is all right. I am not impressed with the observations of the hon. member for Lake Centre on that score. The question is whether the content is defensible or not. The reason for the section is the unsatisfactory state of the existing law. The wording of the present section requires a change mainly on account of the interpretation given to the words "public place".
In Rex v. Benson, 50 Canadian Criminal Cases, page 426, to which my hon. friend referred, restaurants, railway stations, public libraries and shops were declared not to be public places.
In Rex v. Carney, 12 Canadian Criminal Cases, page 349, licensed saloons and billiard halls were considered public places.
In ex parte Ashley, 8 Canadian Criminal Cases, page 325, a theatre was considered to be a public place.
There is therefore considerable confusion as to what is or is not a public place, and it was considered that it would be an offence for any person to make a disturbance in any place except a dwelling house. Causing a disturbance has been defined as raising a clamour or commotion, or quarreling or fighting, and applies to the comfort and convenience of the inhabitants and not necessarily to a breach of the peace. This was decided in Rex v. Martin, 12 Ontario Reports, page 800.
This offence is being moved from the vagrancy section, 238, to the nuisance sections, because it would appear to be at present wrongly placed. A person who engages in a fight on the street, or who obstructs traffic, is not necessarily a loose, idle, disorderly person or vagrant. In Rex v. Law, 42 Canadian Criminal Cases, MacDonald, P.M., dismissed such a case and said that it shocked his sense of justice to hold that a respectable citizen should be dubbed a vagrant simply because he blocked the sidewalk through causing a disturbance. He said he felt it could not have been the intention of the parliament of Canada to brand a man as a vagrant unless there was something else to show that he was a loose, idle or disorderly person.
Therefore the reason underlying the amende ment was that causing a disturbance is not a badge of vagrancy. It is a nuisance, and the offence should be moved out of the vagrancy
section into the nuisance seotions. It was thought that when it was placed in the nuisance sections something should be done to define with more consistency the place within which a disturbance created by persons would be a nuisance.


John George Diefenbaker: Could you not define "public place" as including a place where the public have or have not an inherent right to enter? I think that would cover it. I would point out once more to the minister that to create a disturbance, as he has indicated, has been defined as raising a clamour or a commotion, and I again point out the incongruity of the fact that, as it is at present worded, it would apply to the raising of a clamour in this house or in any other public place. I know the reason for the amendment. My hon. -friend mentioned Rex v. Benson, 50 Canadian Criminal Cases. I happened to be counsel for the appellant in that case, where it was decided that a restaurant was not a public place and I realize that, since that case was decided', wrongs have been committed which have gone unpunished. For that reason there must be some change in the law.
I think it is a good move to transfer this offence from section 238 and put it under the head of nuisance, because in the past any person who was noisy and- was convicted under section 238 was forever thereafter designated as a vagrant.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will see what can be done in the way of drafting between now and eight o'clock.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I certainly think the words "or singing" should be taken out. Every time there is a division in this house we might be charged under that.
Mr. ILSLEY; Yes, but it does not cause a disturbance.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It says "swearing or singing".


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, but in addition to that it must cause a disturbance, and what my hon. friend mentions in illustration does not cause a disturbance within the meaning of the act.


William Ross Macdonald: Is it the intention of the committee to proceed with the consideration of this bill after private bills?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.
Progress reported.
At six q'clock the house took recess.
Private Bills

After Recess
The house resumed at seven o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 241, respecting the Ottawa Electric Railway Company-Mr. Benidickson-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Company empowered to subdivide shares.
Mr. REID:: Are we to have an explanation of this bill?


Mr. BENIDICKSON:: This is a routine amendment of a private bill which was introduced in the senate, considered by a committee there and passed, came to this house for first reading and then was sent to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph fines, which reported it without amendment. This private company is quite old, and the main amendment it is seeking is in section 1, under which fit simply proposes to multiply the number of shares as now authorized by four. On another occasion the house imposed upon the company the restriction that its shares should not be issued at less than $100 each. In the proposed amendment effect is given to that restriction, in that the shares when split four for one are not to be issued at less than $25 a share.
The principal object of the amendment is that there may be a wider distribution of the shares of this company. The present capitalization, based upon a figure of $100 per share, is a stock issue of only 40,000 shares, of which some 35,197 have been issued. It is hoped that the new shares, priced at a lower figure, will be purchased by employees of the company, who have already shown some interest in that possibility.


Thomas Langton Church: It is just a change in the financial set-up of the company?


William Moore Benidickson: Just a change in the capitalization; I assure the hon. member for Broadview that is all. It is hoped that when the individual shares can be purchased for a lesser amount more employees of the company will participate in the ownership of the company itself.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 266, to incorporate Federation Insurance Company of Canada-Mr. Cote (St. Johns-Iberville-Napier-viile)-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Sections 1 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On section 8-Power to acquire rights, etc. of a certain insurance company.
Frank Eric Jaenicke: This company is to take over the assets and business of a French company, and it is the understanding that only the Canadian business of this French company is to be taken over. That being so, I believe section 8 should read accordingly. I therefore move that section 8 of Bill No. 266 be amended by inserting the words "within Canada" after the word "property" and after the word "liabilities" in line 35.


Mr. RINFRET:: That is exactly the amendment I was going to propose.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the effect of the amendment?


Frank Eric Jaenicke: The section will then read:
The company may acquire by agreement to insure or otherwise the whole or any part of the rights and property within Canada, and may assume the obligations and liabilities within Canada of "La Fonciere, Compagnie d'Assu-ranees Mobilieres et Immobilieres a primes fixes,"-


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 366, to incorporate Progressive Insurance Company of Canada-Mr. Rinfret.
Bill No. 378, to incorporate the Limitholders' Mutual Insurance Company-Mr. Lesage.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre) moved the second reading of Bill No. 294, to incorporate Commonwealth Insurance Company.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Private Bills-Divorce

[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre) moved the second reading of Bill No. 273, for the relief of Eileen Maude Gardner Richards.
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs):	Mr. Speaker, I
understand there are forty or fifty divorce bills on the order paper for tonight. We know in recent years of the controversy and difference of opinion in the house in regard to this procedure. However, sir, until the house wishes to alter its own rules with reference thereto, it would be, I believe, in the process of expedition of the business of parliament if we could have these bills disposed of. I know there is opposition to them, and I am not at all objecting to that opposition; not in the slightest. But in my own humble way I commend to the house the necessity for getting these bills advanced one stage and off the order paper.
Gordon Graydon: How any girl ever refused you, after an appeal like that, I do not know.


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I had wished to draw to your attention something which I believed would be preliminary to any observations which might be made by other hon. members.


James Horace King: Since the hon. member is the sponsor of the bill, it is his privilege to speak first.


Ralph Maybank: It was not exactly as mover of the motion that I desired to address the house. Rather it had been my intention to let the bill stand. However I did not hear Your Honour clearly when my name was used in the motion. There has been some confusion as to which should come first.
I had not intended to move the bill tonight, at all, but I do not know whether I am nowin a position to withdraw it from the house.
I have no desire to make an issue of it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Go ahead.


Ralph Maybank: If, on the other hand, it is agreed that the bills should be presented tonight, I shall make a short statement with respect to them. I believe the house knows well my attitude with reference to these private divorce bills. For two or three years I have been introducing them, but definitely I am not in favour of the practice. I realize that, since I do not favour it, I could refrain from moving them. I do that, however, because I am chairman of the miscellaneous bills 83188-322
committee. It is not a rule of the house, nor indeed until a few years ago was it the practice, for the chairman of the miscellaneous bills committee to do as I have been doing for the last tw-o or three years. I understand, however, that in the other place that has been the practice for many years.


An hon. MEMBER:: What has that to do with this?


Ralph Maybank: It has considerable to do with these divorce bills. As I say, I have followed that practice for the last three years, and I am willing to continue to do so, solely because it appears to be the desire of the house that divorce bills should be dealt with in this way.
I cannot express too strongly my opposition to this business of granting private divorces. This year a great many cases have passed in front of my eyes which I think would have been handled differently in the courts. I say that with all respect to the committee of the other house which is doing this business of hearing divorce cases. I think hon. gentlemen over there who are giving their time and attention to these cases are to be commended for the assiduity with which they prosecute the duties that have been put upon them; nevertheless I cannot help thinking a large number of these cases would be handled differently in a court of law.
As an illustration, this year a husband was the applicant in one case, while the wife was the applicant in another case based upon a set of circumstances that she alleged. Unquestionably in a court of law there would have been an examination into both petitions at the same time and the whole domestic trouble between the parties would have been dealt with then. However, under the procedure which we have in the House of Commons and in the other chamber the committee can deal only with the bill before us. The result was that one bill was passed and there was no occasion to pass the other, but we were in danger of being in the position of offering a bill to this house for acceptance in connection with which all the facts had not come out. Indeed, that was admitted. Our procedure makes that sort of thing possible.
I believe the best rule that this house could adopt for the future would be to declare that we will not pass private divorce bills. There might be a chance of some other satisfactory procedure being worked out if that were done.


Thomas Reid: I doubt it.


Ralph Maybank: At any rate things could not be more unsatisfactory than they are. We
urts* smiiif
Private Bills-Divorce

are in the position apparently of the house not being willing to pass a general divorce law for the province of Quebec. That is the nub of the difficulty. What do we do then? We do not pass a general divorce law for Quebec, but we pass two or three hundred divorce laws for Quebec. There is no use in the people of Quebec saying that they do not have divorce in Quebec; they do. The only thing is that they get it in pieces; I mean little bits of legislation.
It seems to me that if a person wants to ive in a place where there is no general law covering divorce that person should accept the place which he or she has chosen as his or her domicile. If Mrs. Richard Roe lives in Brazil and there is no general divorce law there, she would not run to the parliament of Brazil if she had a husband who was a philanderer and say, "I have a philandering husband ; I want to start over again, perhaps with a new husband, and I wish you would give me relief." The parliament of Brazil would not do that. But this parliament will do that for people who live in Quebec. The parliament of Canada would not do that for a woman who came from Manitoba, Ontario, British Columbia or one of the other common law provinces. They would say to that woman. "You have a general law there that can handle this situation; we will not pass it." I am quite confident that if any of these bills were from one of the common law provinces wre would not consider them because there is a general law for the common law provinces.
In effect, every one of these bills says that there is a philandering husband or a philandering wife, and the husband or the wife asks for relief, as the case may be. Year after year hours of senators and of members of the House of Commons, not to mention the possibility of the Chairman getting writer's cramp by having to sign his name to every section, are taken up with these bills We cannot give adequate consideration to these matters. Even though we could give adequate consideration, I submit that this is a practice from which we ought to get away.
I have every respect for the fine people of Quebec. If they do not want a common divorce law, then they had better see to it that some other system is adopted. It is no [DOT] use for hon. members from Quebec to say that they have no. divorce law in the province of Quebec because they have a divorce law there. The only difference is that they get it in this sort of undercover way, and in using that word VI am referring to the law, not to the acts that lead up to these bills. The law is pretty much render cover.. As everybody knows, the criminal . code - forbids the publication of these

senate cases. That is a bad thing in itself. One of the worst things you can have in connection with the administration of law is to have it administered in camera.
One of the cases we had before us was actually defended on the ground that there was connivance by the husband with respect to the adultery of his wife. It came out down in the basement over there from the evidence of one of these investigators that the husband who engaged him said, "Follow my, wife and get the evidence; if you cannot get evidence, make evidence. Then come and tell your story but, of course, don't let on that you and I framed this proposition against her." This scoundrel actually went on to follow out the instructions the husband had given.
If that sort of thing occurred in a court the attorney general would take some action against that blackguard. But this man came before the parliamentary committee and told a story of that kind. No check-up could be made. When a divorce is granted, it is immediate; there is no waiting period in which to check up whether there has been perjury. There is no opportunity of checking a great many other things, whether there has been collusion and so on. The divorce is absolute the moment His Excellency gives royal assent to the bill. It is well known to me that there are numerous people just waiting for that word of His Excellency to get their licences to remarry. If any of these divorces are obtained improperly before these houses of parliament there is no possibility of correction open to anyone. ,
It seems to me that, despite the long history of the granting of divorces in this fashion, we ought to get away from it in another session of parliament.
With respect to the bills which are this evening before this chamber and with respect to the few more that are yet to come and go to the miscellaneous private bills committee, there is a peculiar set of circumstances that we have to take into consideration. I think I have made it abundantly clear that I am opposed to this procedure; yet I have to admit that on a vote on this question tonight I would have to vote that these bills should pass, just as I have sponsored them as a matter of duty as chairman. Of course the reason, if there were no other, that I would advocate their passing at the present time is that great numbers of people have been led to believe that they can get these divorces through these houses of parliament in this way, and it would be visiting upon them a severe punishment if we were to throw out these bills. Take any one of these bills and you can figure it out that, on the average, the applicant has not very much left out of a thousand dollars.

Private Bills-Divorce
There is a large amount of money invested in all these divorce bills, and summarily to turn down these applicants after they have all presented their cases to the Senate would seem to me to be harsh. There would be no opportunity for redress for the many innocent people who have spent their money in moving thus far in the direction of obtaining a divorce, and I would regret greatly to see that happen to this large number of people.
But I think we ought to let future applicants know that this business has come to an end; that, so far as this manner of getting divorces is concerned, the honeymoon is over, to use an expression that is fairly common nowadays to indicate, that a great change in conditions has occurred, a phrase that the Minister of Reconstruction used effectively once or twice in dealing with matters which came under his jurisdiction. It may not, of course, be appropriate to talk about a honeymoon in connection with this sort of thing; but the honeymoon is over, that is clear, and we should let the public of one province, because only one province is involved, know that this method of obtaining a divorce cannot be followed any longer.
I submit that the rule of the house should be changed which permits this kind of private bill to come in. One simple change would be that, instead of private bills of this sort coming in with a payment of whatever fee there is, the fee should hereafter be $25,000 or $50,000, or any other ridiculous sum of money to make it clear that they are not to come here at all. If they happen to pay nothing to the House of Commons but $200 to the Senate we could easily say that it will be $50,000. $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 or $90,000 for each petition. I have no friends who could get a divorce if they had to pay $90,000. I do not want a divorce, and if I did I could not get it at such a price. That is only one way to amend the rule.
We could amend the rule to say that whenever an application for divorce came in it had to come in within the first thirteen minutes of parliament meeting, or something like that, or we could simply pass a resolution that in the opinion of this house it is not desirable to continue the practice of granting divorces in this way.
Some of my friends from Quebec have said to me, "It is an odd thing, but down our way a great many people are asking how it comes about that you are always introducing these, divorce bills. You have a sort of reputation down there for being strongly in favour of divorce, and more of it, and: easier divorce. We tiy to tell them that that is not quite right but still the idea persists." I hope 83166-322J
that after tonight every person will understand that I am engaged in this practice because up to now it had been the desire of the House of Commons-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Because it is a public duty.


Ralph Maybank: Yes, I have taken it in that way, that it is a public duty, and I hope that hereafter no person will think I am in favour of this method of granting divorces. I do not wish it to be understood that I am against divorce. On the contrary, I am' in favour of divorce. I think there are marital difficulties which arise for which there is no other suitable solution than divorce. So far as I am concerned I would liberalize divorce. Divorce solely on the ground of adultery or some sexual perversion is demanding too much. It would be better if we went more, probably not wholly, in the direction of the English practice and liberalized our divorce laws. But my whole point is that, whatever the law is, it should be a general law administered by the courts, and not a specific law for every outraged spouse who wants to come around.
Mi. ELGENE MARQUIS (Kamouraska) r I wish to take exception to some of the statements made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) on the ground, first, that I am not in favour of divorce; second, that the amount of money involved is not so important that we should, do away with principles far greater than divorce bills, and, third, that our divorce law is voted by a large majority of members from the other provinces which give laws to the province of Quebec. That is abnormal and should be abolished. I agree with the hon. member on that point. I will go farther and. say I think divorce should be abolished in the-whole dominion. Every minister of the church, every priest has preached that divorce is s very bad thing; that it is a calamity, and that it should disappear. For half a century divorce has brought bad results in countries like the United States, Canada and Great Britain, and everybody agrees that it would be better to have no divorce, but nobody can say that we should abolish divorce. So, if we have to face the situation we have only to abolish the law by which divorces are granted and in that way we shall have peace.
. (Translation):
As I glanced through the order paper this afternoon, I was pained to see the long list ' of divorce bills it contained. I counted 123 such bills which we are asked to pass tonight. *
Private Bills-Divorce

Economic problems of great import, particularly in this period of reconstruction, are *discussed daily in this house. But let us not stop to consider only economic values, which are worth much less than moral and spiritual values. Therefore. I do not think I am exceeding my rights as a member of this house in emphasizing, for a few moments, the importance of spiritual values and marriage according to Christian precepts, and the abomination of divorce in a country such as ours.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that any country which accepts divorce is headed for decadence and; ruin. I am not setting myself up as an authority'. One need only read the great London and New York dailies, or some Canadian newspaper to realize that decadence threatens and disorders are rife in countries where divorces are mounting up. Statesmen gather around tables to pave the way for a just and lasting peace. They would establish a doctrine of love in the world and kill all germs of dissension. Unfortunately, they forget to protect the root of love in the home itself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. MARQUIS:: Mr. Speaker, statesmen should in the first place direct their efforts and turn their minds to the upholding of this principle, in order to stabilize the home, to .*strengthen the family and to foster in our (country as in other nations the establishment of a Christian society, resting on solid ground *and assured of future peace.
When France reached the highest pinnacle of intellectual and spiritual fame, when she (filled the pages of her history with glorious [DOT]conquests did France then diraw her strength from divorce? No. When France suffered re verses, the sacred; bonds of married1 love had been broken, the home had been overthrown and disorder had been gnawing at the heart and soul of the nation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Eugène Marquis: Great Britain, which had always been a model of discipline, has also (allowed divorce to become rampant. What ihappens today? Ministers of the gospel hold (meetings to devise means of uprooting this poisonous plant which is threatening the (Christian way of life in that country.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying anything new-but truths take on a stronger meaning in their application-when I say that divorce is doing an injustice not only to husbands and wives but to children as well. Recently I noticed in a newspaper the picture of a child, her mother and her grandmother. The court had decided that the child should be given out for adoption because her parents /Mr. Marquis,]
had been divorced; the mother remarried and the father was found unfit to look after the child who was only two .years old. The picture showed the grandmother looking sadly at her daughter and her granddaughter, both unfortunate victims of this social evil.
Mr. Speaker, recently I read in a Montreal newspaper, Le Devoir, an article which dealt with statistics published by the Toronto Star, and I would like to quote a brief excerpt therefrom:
Recently, the Toronto Star made a parallel between the United States and Canada from the point of view of divorce.
In 1946, there were 2,300,000 weddings in the United States, which represents an increase of
680.000.	On the other hand, divorces numbered
620.000,	an increase of 118,000, or four divorces for every ten weddings.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: It is unbelievable.


Eugène Marquis: A comparative census shows that in 1932, there were four divorces for every 25 weddings.
In Canada, states the Toronto Star, there were about four divorces for every 250 weddings in 1932, as against four divorces for every 85 weddings in 1945.


An hon. MEMBER:: A tremendous average.


Eugène Marquis: Of course, the divorce to wedding ratio is not as alarming as in the United States, but divorces were live times as numerous in 1945 than in 1932 and the statistics for 1946 will show a further increase. In other words, the progression takes place at a faster rate here than among our neighbours.
What is the explanation of this tendency in both countries? The gradual forsaking of sound principles ... is no doubt responsible to a large extent. The war has also been an important factor. Hasty marriages, long separations and war-provoked circumstances have largely contributed to the increase in the divorce rate. The example given by Hollywood, both in real life and the films has been an influence. But, above all. divorce provokes more divorces. The more common it becomes, the less reprehensible it appears and the more frequent it is. What will this lead us to?
Mr. Speaker, one principle should never be forgotten: that marriage is the very foundation of human preservation and that it is a divine institution. I feel it my duty to state in this house that human laws can never supersede the dictates of God, nor abolish the hard-and-fast rules, nor modify them one whit.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


Eugène Marquis: What was good long ago for the ancestors of those who advocate divorce, which allowed them to people the earth with sturdy and righteous men, should be equally good for those of their descendants who, at the present time, can no longer differentiate

Private Bills-Divorce
between licence and freedom, disorder and order, caprice and sound morals, immorality and morality. Let us not delude ourselves; we are facing quite a serious problem, and if we do not consider important matters on their merit and from their true angles, we shall grope in the dark on a course leading us to error. Marriage is assimilated to concubinage and people are told that if they have mistakenly contracted marriage it is up to the man or woman who has made that mistake, to make a fresh start. However those who after a first marriage, found that they had made a mistake, have married a second time. Seeing that they had made a second mistake, they married a third time, and then found out that they had been just as much mistaken the last time as the first. Moreover, we are asked to cover up that shame with our ridiculous legislation. How stupid! Divorce is condemned by all church authorities, Protestant or Catholic. Protestant denominations have repeatedly done so. I feel that in a country like ours divorce should be prohibited, for the sound reason that marriage is not a whim and does not exist for the mere satisfaction of husband and wife. Marriage is a divine institution whose purpose is the procreation of the generation which will come after us, which will develop this country and ultimately ensure the continuity of our traditions and our national heritage.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Eugène Marquis: Mr. Speaker, I admit that my hon. friends have every right to hold different views, but there is quite a difference between an opinion and a principle, and as far as I am concerned, I consider that in such matters we should be governed by the principles proceeding from a divine source, which is the same for all religions which glorify God and for all countries where faith exists. The principle which we must uphold is the protection of marriage and the elimination of divorce. Besides, did not the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Ma.vbank) admit jt a few moments ago, when he said, there was no sense in this, that this legislation should be changed.
The province of Quebec has its own law as regards marriage. Section 185 of the civil code, which governs property and civil rights in our province, reads as follows:
(185. Marriage is dissolved only through the natural death of the husband or wife: as long as they are both living, it is indissoluble.
In our province, the law says that marriage is indissoluble and that no legislation can annul it. Because, as Catholics and Christians, the husband and wife must live in
conformity with the principles which have been the basis of their education, which must govern their lives and lead them toward the great beyond. It is not through a bill of the Canadian parliament that their status can be established from the standpoint of religion or family because this divorce law prevents their being arraigned for bigamy, and precludes any criminal proceedings.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that divorce legislation should be abolished in this country. The hon. members of the Senate are tired of hearing divorce cases. Many hon. members of this house, especially those from the province of Quebec, object to the passing of divorce bills. Catholics and even some hon. members of other denominations or from other provinces, whom I wish * to congratulate, voted last year against some divorce bills. I respectfully submit that we should do away with divorce and leave each province free to settle marriage matters.
Finally, we have, at the present time, in the province of Quebec, a statute relating to marriage. Now, what is the effect of these divorce bills? The Quebec civil code is eluded. Indirect methods are countenanced of doing things which cannot be done directly. These acts are passed in the Canadian parliament and enforced in the province of Quebec, in spite of the opposition of its representatives. The time has come for these matters to be considered most seriously, for they constitute a vital problem for the country. Once for all, let us rid this house and parliament of the divorce problem.
Mr. Speaker, I wished to quote statistics. Unfortunately, the time allotted to me will not permit it. However, I want to refer to what the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) stated a few months ago, in connection with divorces in Canada:
In 1901 there were only 661 divorces in Canada. for a population of 5,300,000; in 1911, 1,530 actions were taken and in 1921, the number had climbed to 7,410. Between 1911 and 1921. a period similar to the present one, inasmuch as it was marked by an armed conflict, the troublous times resulted in a five-fold increase in the number of divorces, which climbed from 1.500 to 7,401. In 1941, divorces numbered 14.032 in our country compared to 7,441 in 1931. This is an increase of practically 100 per cent. On the strength of these figures, unless we endeavour to curb this tendency, if the five-fold increase in the number of divorces holds for the period 1941 to 1951 as for that of 1911 to 1921, 70,000 homes will have been broken in Canada in the ten years previous to 1951.
(Text):


James Horace King: Order. The hour reserved for private bills having expired, the house will now revert to its business prior to six o'clock.
Criminal Code



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 364, to amend the criminal code-Mr. I Is ley-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
William Ross Macdonald: When the committee rose at six o'clock it was considering section 3 of the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister in a position now to answer the question regarding this section, as to whether or not an amendment should be made to make this section applicable to an offence being committed in a place to which the public has or is permitted to have access, whether by licence or otherwise?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The motion I propose is that section 3 be amended by striking out the words "any place other than a dwelling-house as defined in paragraph (g) of section three hundred and thirty-five" in lines 24, 25 and 26 on page 1, and substituting the following:
in or near any street, road or highway, or in any restaurant, railway station, public library, tavern, billiard hall, theatre, shop or other place to which the members of the public are admitted whether as a matter of right or otherwise . . .
Do hon. gentlemen think that is too broad, or what? Perhaps we could let this section stand while I have the amendment copied for the benefit of my -hon. friend.
Section stands.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Culpable homicide murder in certain cases.


Thomas Reid: Has the minister given any *consideration, or will he give consideration, to the number of indecent assaults occurring in the various provinces? The suggestion is made that a crime of this kind is committed by a person who is mentally ill, and it is complained that when these men are sent to penitentiaries or reformatories the practices still continue in spite of the surveillance to which they are subject. My request to the minister is that the entire situation be reviewed with a view to segregating these offenders instead of having them mix with other prisoners.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The matter to which the hon. gentleman has referred is being studied at the present time. I have taken note of the articles in the press, the resolutions that have been passed on this subject, and the scientific arguments that have been advanced. We are in communication with the Department of /Mr. Speaker.]
National Health and Welfare on the matter, and I can promise the hon. gentleman that the matter will continue to .receive most careful and intensive consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On section 10-Proviso.
John George Diefenbaker: I quite realize the circumstances under which this amendment is being introduced, but I question whether it is not going too far in placing the onus upon the accused. The principle of common law is, of course, that the onus must always rest upon the crown. The amendment reads as follows:
. . . any person who while intoxicated or under the influence of any narcotic occupies the seat ordinarily occupied by a person driving a motor vehicle shall be deemed to have the care and control of the said motor vehicle unless the said person establishes that he did not enter or mount the said vehicle for the purpose of setting it in motion.
I can appreciate the reason for the amendment, because certain judges have held that a person sitting behind the wheel of a car that is not in motion is not driving that car, nor has he any control over it. I rise only for the pui-pose of pointing out that in accepting this departure from the major principle of criminal law, namely that the onus rests upon the crown, I hope the minister does not take it as a precedent to remove that safeguard, which is of the essence of British criminal law, as far as other sections are concerned.


James Lorimer Ilsley: When I have more time I want to give the house the long list of sections in the criminal code where the onus is shifted in circumstances something like these, and to point out that if this were not the case, law enforcement would be impossible. I realize the validity of the underlying general principle, and that it should not be interfered with except in the case of necessity, and, generally speaking, where the means of proof are peculiarly with the defendant.


John George Diefenbaker: In the knowledge of the defendant.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; that is the general principle. Perhaps it does not apply in every ease; but in this instance, as I think the hon. member appreciates, no injustice can be done.


Mr. MILLER:: Does the minister not think perhaps this amendment will encourage a drunken driver to keep on driving in an endeavour to get home? It seems to me that if a man is driving a car and realizes that he is drunk the proper thing for him to do is to pull over to the side of the road and sleep it off instead of trying to get home. It seems

Criminal Code
to me that, under this amendment, once a man has started to drive while in that condition, he is guilty of this offence, and, knowing that,, he will try to carry on until he gets home, whereas what he should do when he finds he cannot handle the car is to get to the side of the road and sleep it off.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman is taking the case of an intelligent man who finds himself getting a little too drunk to drive. All he has to do is to pull over to the side of the road and get out of the driver's seat.


Gordon Graydon: How intelligent is he when he is too drunk to drive?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If he is intelligent enough to realize it, he is pretty intelligent.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I wonder why the minister does not include the driver of a motor boat in this section. I say that because at many summer resorts people get into motor boats and ride around in circles near people in canoes, and cause a great deal of trouble. There should be a stiff penalty for anything of that kind.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I believe the suggestion of the hon. gentleman is worth looking into. I have had no representations about drunken drivers of motor boats; I did not know there were any.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That has happened at many places throughout the country, and I do not think there is any law to protect those in other boats. If these drunken drivers get into the ship channel then the Minister of Transport has a law for them, but if they get into the bay or out of the channel there is nothing to protect other people.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Suppose this motor boat driver realizes he is drunk; what should he do? He cannot park on the side of the road. Should he jump in the lake?


Thomas Langton Church: Notwithstanding the heavy loss of life, we have yet to provide a section dealing adequately with this offence. As the chief analyst for the Ontario government has said, eighty per cent of the accidents on our highways are caused by people who are not fit to drive their cars because of the intoxicants they have taken. It is all very well to talk about those who are in charge of a ear. Some people sleep in their cars. Recently in my own city they have moved all the cars off the downtown streets and put them on the waterfront. Others sleep in trailers, which the-y are trying to move now to make room for the sick children's hospital. This section has not been strengthened at all. The proposed amendment will cause far more confusion .than there has been under the existing law. The appalling fatal accidents and injuries from highway motor traffic are mounting steadily night and day. Every highway in Canada is coloured red with the slaughter. The loss in men, women and children, as well as the economic loss, is deplorable.
Several months ago, when I proposed an amendment, somewhat similar to this one the minister showed a great deal of sympathy. Many of these accidents are caused by failure to exercise care and judgment, on the part of those who drive these deadly, menacing machines. Nothing has contributed so much as the motor car to the education and enjoyment of the public. But, like every other great invention, and as in connection with medicine, science, physics and chemistry, use is one thing and abuse is another. Because of the abuse of the motor car in Canada today, we read in our newspapers every day about these casualties. On Dominion day, Tuesday of this week, there were seventy-five casualties, some of which were from drowning, but the great majority from the use of motor cars.
I hope that something may be done under this provision to remove this public scandal. Every highwa3' is coloured, red with slaughter, and nothing has been done, so far as I can see in this section, to cure the disease. The total list of those killed and injured on the highways of England, the United States and Canada during the six years of the war was almost equal to the number of casualties of those killed and injured in the war.
I have referred to this matter on many occasions, and I shall not occupy more of the time of the committee this evening. I do not say anything by way of criticism of the minister or of his deputy, because the minister has indeed a most able deputy at the present time, a man who has the advantage of having come from Toronto. The deputy minister of justice, Mr. Varcoe, K.C., C.M.G., was educated at Harbord collegiate, which has produced some great men, including Sir Edward Beatty, Beverley Baxter, Garfield Weston and others.
I call to the minister's attention the recommendations of chief justices, judges and magistrates and the law courts, the bar association. the chief constables' association and others for the cure of this disease. I doubt very much that the changing of a few words here and there will obtain the object the minister has in mind, because anyone can say now, "I did not intend to drive the car, no matter where I was sitting'', and he will get the benefit of the doubt.
Criminal Code


Mr. McMASTER:: I should like the minister to tell us in what way he thinks he is strengthening the section, or in what way it is better than the original one. It states:
(4) Everyone who, while intoxicated or under the influence of any narcotic, drives any motor vehicle or automobile, or has the care or control of a motor vehicle or automobile, whether it is in motion or not, shall be guilty of an offence.
Surely that section is as clear as it can be. If the accused person has the care or control he is guilty, whether it is in motion or not. I know a court has decided that if it was not in motion and the man was drunk there was nothing to show that he had it under his control.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Right.


William Alexander McMaster: But I cannot see how we have made it any stronger by this amendment. The way it is now, the only difference it makes is that the onus is thrown upon a man, and it must have been on him before.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


William Alexander McMaster: He was guilty if he was sitting in the car.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


William Alexander McMaster: In the amendment the only difference is that he can get up and say that he did not enter the vehicle to set it in motion. He may have had it in motion, and may have stopped a moment. He may have been under the influence, but if he says he did not mount it for the purpose of starting it he is free. It should be stronger than that., if we are ever to get a court to make a conviction.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The only way to make it stronger is to leave out the concluding words, "unless the said person establishes that he did not enter or mount the said vehicle for the purpose of setting it in motion." If we leave off those words we expose a person who accidentally, in a drunken stupor, gets into a car to go to sleep, or something of that kind. He is left open to a conviction. That person never did have the control of the car, and he should be given an opportunity of showing that he did not enter the car or get on the motorcycle, if a motorcycle is involved, for the purpose of setting it in motion, and that he was not in the car for that purpose at all. That should be a defence to such a person.
But if those words are left off everyone would be subject to conviction.


William Alexander McMaster: Those words were not in the old act. If he was in it, whether it was in motion or not, he was supposed to be guilty of the offence.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, with deference, I think the hon. member is wrong. Before this amendment, if his state of intoxication were sufficiently advanced the courts in many of the provinces held he did not have control of the motor vehicle. It is no longer open to an accused person to defend himself on those grounds. The early words in this proviso take that defence away from him. But they leave a defence to a person who, having got into the car for the purpose of setting it in motion, goes to sleep.


William Alexander McMaster: It takes away a defence that was not very strong and gives him a defence that is strong.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I return to the point I tried to make a moment ago. It seems to me that a man who is drunk and stops his car on the side of the road for the same purpose, namely to sleep it off, should be in just as strong a position as the drunken man who got into the car, not intending to start off with it. The other man got into the car with the intention of driving it. He does drive it for a distance and finds he is incapable of doing so. Therefore he wisely drives off to the side of the road. I say he should be protected just as much as the drunken man who gets in but does not start the car at all.
Mr. ILSLEY': The hon. member's argument leads to this conclusion, that we should not change the section at all. Perhaps we should not. But certainly we have been severely criticized by the courts for not changing it. There is a recent judgment of a judge in the supreme court of New Brunswick which is most caustic in its reference to the lawmakers. The reason is obvious.
If persons accused of driving a car while intoxicated can go into a court and say, "I was too drunk to be guilty," it shocks the public; indeed it shocks us all, I believe.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I hold no brief for the drunken driver; I hate him. I do not like defending them, either in court or in parliament, But I believe that if we are giving a break to the man who gets in and does not start the car, the man who uses his head and, when he finds he is drunk, is wise enough to stop, should be protected possibly more than the other chap.


Mr. HACKETT:: I am going to suggest that the words which have been used to indicate that the man entered the automobile be changed. It does not seem to me that it makes much difference what his purpose was on entering the automobile, so long as he

Criminal Code
was in it without the intention of setting it in motion. The words now are:
Provided that any person who while intoxicated or under the influence of any narcotic occupies the seat ordinarily occupied by a person driving a motor vehicle shall be deemed to have the care or control of the said motor vehicle unless the said person establishes that he did not enter or mount the said vehicle.
If the words "enter or mount" were changed to the words, "unless he establish that he was not in the said vehicle" he would then be in the position in which I think the minister wants him to be. It would enable a person to show that, having entered an automobile with the intention of setting it in motion, he had not done so, or, having done so, had ceased to keep it in motion. I would think that change would enable the person to set up a defence which might exculpate him in circumstances where he would necessarily be condemned if he had entered the car with the intention of setting it in motion, whether he did or not.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It may logically be so,
but would it not really mean that the section would become unenforceable. An accused person could step up and swear, "It is true I was in the car; it is true I was behind the wheel; it is true I was driving the car, or I entered it with the intention of driving it, but there came a time when I did not intend to drive it any more. I was drunk behind the wheel of the car; I had been driving it, but I stopped driving it and I did not intend to start the car again." I do not think he should get off under those circumstances.


John Thomas Hackett: Nor do I. If he said
that he would be guilty.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not under the amendment
suggested by the hon. gentleman. His suggestion is that the section be amended so that it will read, "unless the said person establishes that he is not in the said vehicle for the purpose of setting it in motion." That would enable him to say, "True, I got in for that purpose and I drove it; I was drunk at the time and drunk before I got in, but there came a time when I decided not to drive it any more. I am testifying to that; nobody can deny that was my state of mind and, therefore, I am not guilty." That man ought to be held to be guilty.


John Thomas Hackett: I am not going to carry
the argument much farther, but I do not think my suggestion lends itself to that interpretation. If a man were driving a oar I do not think it would be open to him to say that it was not his intention to do so. What I am endeavouring to do is to protect the person 83166-323
who, having entered a car with the intention of driving it, was not driving it, in that it was still at the moment of the collision or whatever happened.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is the hon. gentleman suggesting that he never drove it, that he entered the car and did not drive it at any time?


John Thomas Hackett: He may have driven it,
but he had ceased to drive it. As I interpret this amendment, it merely means that the man having entered the vehicle for the purpose of setting it in motion, a situation is created from which he cannot escape. My suggestion is that, having entered it with the intention of setting it in motion, if he ceases to keep it in motion, then he may escape.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think that is a bit fine
spun to incorporate into legislation. If a man is drunk and gets in a car, while he is behind the wheel of that car I think he comes within the spirit of the original section which was that he should be convicted if he had the care and control of the car while intoxicated. It should not be open to him to say, "I was too drunk to be said to have the car under my control even though I was sitting behind the wheel." It should not be open to him to be able to say that.


John Thomas Hackett: My suggestion was not
that he be able to avail himself of the suggestion set forth by the minister.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Is there any other section in the criminal code under which a man may be convicted of an offence when, under the statute, he is guilty only of the intention to commit an offence? That is what this amendment does. If a man gets in a car and intends to drive it and does not drive it, under this amendment he is guilty of an offence although he is guilty actually of only the intention to commit an offence.


James Lorimer Ilsley: He is not to be convicted of intent only; he is being convicted of intent plus the act. The act is taking custody of a car, being in the car, having the car under his care and control while he is drunk, plus the intent of setting the car in motion after he got into it.


Thomas Langton Church: The explanatory note to this section states that the amendment is made following recent court decisions to the effect that a driver may be too drunk to have the care or control of a motor vehicle. There is a great need for a drastic revision of this particular section which is amending subsection 4 of section 285, as enacted by section

Criminal Code

6 of chapter 11 of the statutes of 1930. Professor Jocelyn Rodgers, medico-legal expert of Ontario and of the attorney general's department, a gentleman who has been giving evidence all over the province in connection with this section, says it is not the drunken driver who is the greatest menace-he is, as a rule, quite harmless-it is the man who drives in a state of slight conviviality with enough alcohol to give him a little exhilarated feeling and inspires him to take a chance at a time when that amount of alcohol will slow down the action of his brain and nerve cells so that when a crisis arises he cannot act quickly.
The railroads have a rule, known as rule G, which forbids any employee to touch alcoholic beverages while on duty. That rule states that a man driving a railroad engine should have no alcohol in his system. The same provision should certainly apply to the driver of a motor car, which is a more dangerous instrument of destruction. In some cases this has been provided by amendments to the law with regard to vendors.
I should like to quote from a letter which I received from the Reverend John Coburn, who has been writing to the government for many years in connection with this matter. In this letter he referred to the evidence which had been given by Professor Jocelyn Rodgers, to which I referred a moment ago. A decision was given by a police magistrate in Mimico and also by two or three other judges, which is referred to in the explanatory note to this section. This gentleman, the Reverend John Coburn of Toronto, goes on to say, in his letter to the minister and to members of the house, as follows:
I think you will recognize that the police officers are up against an immense task. Magistrates and judges often seem to think that unless a man is drunk he has not committed a violation of the law. This is entirely erroneous. Some states in the union have passed a law making a blood test compulsory. According to Doctor Rodger's estimate, liquor is killing 5 people and injuring 84 every week on the highways of Ontario alone.
I believe he gave that evidence recently. I am very doubtful if this law goes far enough. The public want some better law provisions.


Mr McMASTER:: The minister is dealing with the case of a person occupying a certain seat in a motor vehicle. All the accused has to do is to establish that he did not enter the seat for the purpose of setting the vehicle in motion. He might have been sober when he entered the seat, and his excuse might be that someone gave him a' little liquor and that it went to his head. I suggest that he

should establish, not that he did not "enter or mount the said vehicle" but. that he did not "occupy the seat." You are referring previously to his occupying the seat. Why go back to the time he entered it, which may have been an hour before?


James Lorimer Ilsley: You would never convict. They would say that they changed their minds about driving the car any longer.


William Alexander McMaster: They must get behind the wheel.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If he is behind the wheel and is drunk the car is under his control.


William Alexander McMaster: I suggest that the intention is to make the law stronger. Then why not use the appropriate words?


David Arnold Croll: I rather agree with the hon. member. The man not only must have the car under his care and control, but must actually be occupying the seat if he is behind the wheel. Those three things are necessary. It must be part and parcel of the offence.


Mr. FAIR:: It seems strange that you should have one set of government officials selling liquor to a man and another set of government officials convicting him because he is drunk. Why not fix up the sales of liquor rather than arrest and convict and fine a man or hang him if he injures or kills anybody after drinking?


Calvert Charlton Miller: In Manitoba they have watered the liquor down to about fifty per cent.


Mr. MANROSS:: What clause protects us from the backseat driver?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, an amendment was moved to clause 3, and the hon. member for Lake Centre wished to see a copy of the amendment.
On section 3-Causing a disturbance.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the amendment suggested by the minister covers the point that I raised this afternoon. It, provides that you only commit the offence of creating a disturbance, in other words a clamour, if you are at or near any street, road or highway, or in any restaurant, railway station, public library, tavern, billiard hall, theatre, shop or other place to which members of the public are admitted whether as a matter of right or otherwise. I think that brings it strictly within the rule in the Benson case, and it does do one thing: it protects members

Criminal Code
of parliament from now on from being liable for any offence under the section as originally drawn.


William Alexander McMaster: This bill is to protect the public, and it does seem a little easier to get the minister to lighten the burden on the public than to make it stronger. You cannot possibly cover every place by specifying them all. I can think of a noise being made in an automobile. I do not see why a man should make a big noise in his own house. This government will keep a good man out of his own house and will not let a bad man be turned out of somebody else's house.


Mr. HARTT:: Why not read the clause first and speak afterwards?


William Alexander McMaster: I still think the amendment weakens the clause. A man should not be allowed to create a disturbance in his own house. In Toronto if you telephone the police and say that there is an awful noise next door, unless you can prove that there is somebody almost being murdered the police will say, "That is going on in his own house". The public have a right to be protected' against a disturbance.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
On section 13-"Dwelling-house".
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will this clause not have to be changed?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to make a suggestion in regard to section 13. I do not know whether the draftsman in drafting this section had before him a case that took place in Saskatchewan in reference to having liquor in a dwelling-house. There the definition was very much the same as here, and it was held that a room in a hotel did not constitute a dwelling-house. I would suggest that the amendment does not exactly cover what the minister had in mind. What harm would there be in adding, in order to ensure certainty, words somewhat to this effect: "without restricting the generality of the foregoing shall be deemed to include a room or rooms in a hotel or house." Once you define it as it now is, I am little afraid that some judge might hold that it does not cover what the minister has in mind, namely, hotel rooms. I make that suggestion because I know of a case under the liquor act-I sent out for it but did not get the right volume-in which the person was 83166-3231
charged: with having liquor in a hotel room.. The question of the definition of "dwelling-house" came up, and the appellant, won his-appeal because the definition of "dwelling-house" was not sufficiently explicit.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It certainly was intended to cover a hotel room which was occupied as a permanent or temporary residence. I was a little concerned about getting too far away from what I assumed was the common law. This is a change of definition of part VII of the criminal code. That is the part that deals with offences against rights of property and rights arising out of contracts and offences connected with trade. This has the effect of making theft in a hotel bedroom a much more serious offence than it has been heretofore, because if we have properly drafted the section it will hereafter be the same as theft in a dwelling-house. That is, the offence carries twice the punishment or something like that. I do not think there would be any objection to making it explicit if it is necessary. I doubt whether it is necessary. It has been drafted at the request of one of the provinces where there is considerable trouble with this kind of theft.


John George Diefenbaker: Was it drafted in that form by the province which submitted it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot say exactly. They did not refer explicitly to hotel bedrooms; they used general language. The deputy thinks it is just as it came to us.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
On section 16-Tampering and interfering with fire extinguishers or equipment.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: This section reads:
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to one year's imprisonment, or to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or to both such imprisonment and fine, who wilfully damages or interferes with any fire protection or fire safety equipment or device so as to render it inoperative or ineffective.
There should be a period after the word "device", because if a person interferes with any fire equipment he certainly ought to get the full penalty. There should be no halfway measure.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If they knock some enamel off or something like that?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They would not do that wilfully.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, they would.
Criminal Code


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The section says "wilfully damages or interferes".
Mr. HjSLEY : Suppose they did some damage to it mischievously but so as not to affect the working of it at all?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If they do it mischievously it is not wilful.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In a case like that, no. There should be the full penalty on this, because I know one case where a person did not interfere with the apparatus so that it would not work; but he disconnected the end of the hose so that when the fire hose was pulled out the other end was not connected; it took four or five minutes to connect it, and a lot of damage was done in the meantime. This person would not be guilty under this section, because the apparatus was still operative although they disconnected it. There should be a period after the word "device".


Joseph Arthur Lesage: There is something in what has been said. If the offence is small justice will be satisfied with a small fine.


Maurice Hartt: I respectfully submit to the aon. gentleman who proposes that the sentence should stop at the word "device" and leave out the words "inoperative or ineffective", that it would mean the person who caused the mischief had not caused any damage; because, unless the instrument is made inoperative or unless the act complained of interferes with the working of the apparatus, no person can be held responsible and liable for something that he has not damaged.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He has damaged it.


Maurice Hartt: If a man just touches a machine and a malevolent complainant wishes to take him before the courts and says that this man has tampered with a fire apparatus the judge has no alternative and no discretion but must condemn him to one year's imprisonment or a fine of $500.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: No; that is the maximum.


Maurice Hartt: I am not bargaining with the committee. What I say is that the judge has no option if it is proved that the mischievous person has committed an offence. If he has not made the machine inoperative; if the machine is still working he has caused no damage and has not interfered with the working of the fire apparatus. I submit that the only time a person can be held liable for an offence is when the offence is committed. As a matter of fact, when no injury is caused no offence is committed.
IMr. Haley.]


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The hon. gentleman has tried to put up a case, but I still say that a fire apparatus, no matter where it is, is sacred.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It really is. It is protection of life and should not be touched.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the section carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister has not given his decision.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would be a little worried about taking these words out, on the ground that we ought to be careful when we create a crime that we are dealing with something that should -be made a crime. "Wilful" means "intentional"; that is all. Technically, wilfully interfering with fire protection or fire safety equipment or devices would include the moving of some apparatus, and might technically come within the wording of the section even though the person did not intend to render it inoperative or ineffective. In other words, if these words come out it would include slight damage which did not render the apparatus inoperative or ineffective, and it might mean just moving it around or something of that kind.


Mr FRASER:: There is some fire apparatus that you can put out of operation by just moving it around.


Maurice Hartt: Then it is inoperative.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: All right; I should like to see these words taken out.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Some fire marshals' association suggested this wording. I do not like to create crimes unless the act is in its nature criminal. Before we pass this section, I wish to say to the committee a word about the explanatory note opposite the preceding section. I have been informed that the explanatory note is incorrect. The note says that the court of appeal of Ontario quashed a conviction on certain grounds. The conviction was not quashed on the grounds set out in the explanatory note. That is immaterial from the point of view of the section. In my judgment the amendment is still a meritorious one. I have been informed, one might say officially, that that explanatory note is incorrect; that the grounds set out were not the grounds on which the conviction was quashed. I do not believe that written reasons were given.


Thomas Langton Church: With reference to section 16, the amendment is not necessary for this reason. The criminal code provides for the

Criminal Code
wilful destruction of certain classes of public and private property. That is provided for already. From 'the records I have of our own city and others, as well as schools-and it applies in other places as well-except on Hallowe'en there has been very little tampering with the safety devices set out in the explanatory note to this section. The note says:
Its purpose is to make it an offence for anyone to tamper or interfere with fire extinguishers or equipment in or on any premises which would render it inoperable in the event of a fire.
That is the proposal now put into section 16. I suggest that far more damage has been done, as any school board can tell you, certainly in our large cities, damage amounting to anywhere from .115,000 to $20,000, I am told, by children throwing stones at hydro electric lights and globes. It runs into a large sum of money. The same complaint comes from other cities. I have seen reports in one paper about the destruction here in Ottawa, to a lesser degree. I think for more damage is caused in that way, but school boards and community clubs are checking on it.
As regards fire calls, I think the fine of $500 is too much. For the most part it will be found that juveniles are at fault, especially on October 31, Hallowe'en, and offences of this sort also follow every war. There is always wilful destruction of public property. The Addington administration faced the same problem as far back as 1801. I would ask the minister whether he has had any recommendation from the fire chiefs in this regard.
Mr. 1LSLEY: Yes.


Thomas Langton Church: Nevertheless I think the penalty is severe, a year and $500. Surely the police can stop this without such a penalty. Damage has been done also to some public buildings. I know that, from the insurance rates having been marked up, because of fire protection not being ample. There has been damage to some of the public departments, to schools and public institutions by reason of such interference with fire equipment or fire boxes. A few minutes' delay in getting to a fire might result in a heavier loss. I know this is a serious matter, but I think the penalty is too great because most or some of the offenders are juveniles.
I suggest that there should be some other remedy with - regard to wilful destruction of globes, and interference with direct currents and primary and secondary lines of electricity, and fire and police electric boxes on highways. Often lights go out on street cars and
in subways because someone interferes with a pole or globe or with conditions around plants, or right of way, or on overhead and all that kind of thing. The minister says he has had recommendations from the fire chiefs association?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Thomas Langton Church: Many of them?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Several.


Thomas Langton Church: I still think the penalty is too severe, and it is dangerous to imprison for this in the case of juveniles who cannot shell out.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It occurred to me that if, as suggested by the hon. member for Peterborough West, a period is put after "device", it means that a mischievous boy ringing in a false fire alarm would be subject to a $500 fine or imprisonment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would that not be a severe penalty?
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: Would this allow anyone to fool around with fire equipment, take it away and bring it back, as long as it was not damaged or rendered inoperative or ineffective?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If he has it at home it is inoperative and ineffective.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: It seems to me that a parallel case would be to allow a man to use a rifle to shoot at somebody else and it would be all right as long as the bullet did. not hit him.	<


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-Section repealed.
John George Diefenbaker: What is the reason for the repeal of subsection 7 of section 554?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It has been redundant since 1941. It is a little complicated.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it only a case of redundancy?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-"judge" defined.
Frank Eric Jaenicke: This is the important section of the amendments before us. As I understand it, if a person is convicted of an indictable offence and has been indicted three times previously of an offence for which he was liable to imprisonment for over five years,
*5054
Criminal Code

he can be tried by the same court as an habitual criminal, and apparently the only evidence necessary to find him such, either by judge or by judge and jury, is that, since attaining the age of eighteen, he has at least three times previously been convicted of the *crime charged in the indictment, and for which he was liable to five years' imprisonment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not quite right.


John George Diefenbaker: There is the question of leading a criminal life.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: That all has to be proved, and then the court, according to section 575B, if it is of the opinion that, by reason of his criminal habits and mode of life, it is expedient for the protection of the public, may pass a further indeterminate sentence. Suppose he is tried by a judge and jury. He will be tried by the same court, judge and jury, for being an habitual criminal, and all the jury has to determine is whether he has been three times convicted. The question of his mode of life and criminal habits is for the judge to decide, according to my interpretation of this section.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I may be wrong, but that is my interpretation of it. I would suggest to the minister that something else be included in line 30 after "mode of life", or in Jine 29 after "criminal habits". Would his attitude toward accepted standards of morality Be taken into consideration? I should like the minister to consider that point.


David Arnold Croll: Perhaps the minister can answer a number of questions at the same time. Might I direct his attention to subsection 2 on page 7:
In any indictment under this section it shall be sufficient, after charging the crime, to state that the offender is a habitual criminal.
As I think the minister knows, if perchance the man is tried before a jury and he does not see fit to give evidence, it is the custom for the jury to take the indictment with them into the jury room, and on reading the indictment they see immediately that he is an habitual criminal. I submit that we are prejudicing the case of the man who is being tried, and I do not think it is tire minister's desire to do that. You are giving information that would not ordinarily be obtained. That is my reading of the section. I do not know what othere make of it, but in that way he may be three times the loser, much too quickly under that method of procedure.


Mr. HEON:: It would be equivalent to reading the criminal record of the accused .before he was found guilty.
{Mr. Jaenicke.]


David Arnold Croll: I am suggesting that the man does not enter the box and there is no way of the jury knowing. They would have nothing before them except the evidence. But it is mentioned in the indictment that he is a habitual criminal.


David Arnold Croll: That is my point.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: That is what 1 say; it would inform a jury that a man had a criminal record, before he was found guilty.


David Arnold Croll: Quite; that is my suggestion.


William Alexander McMaster: It has been suggested that the minister answer all the questions at once, and I should like to know if the records show that there ever was such a person, who has been convicted four times of indictable offences and punished with sentences of at least five years. If there are such people, how many are there?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Let us .take the questions one by one. In the first place, the hon. member for Kindersley asked a question. If the case is tried by a judge with a jury, before a man can be .convicted of being a habitual criminal the jury must find not. only that he has been convicted three times previously of offences for which he was liable to at least five years' imprisonment, but also that he is persistently leading a criminal life.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: With all due respect, I do not think the section says that.


Thomas Langton Church: The minister has been in charge of the department for only a short time, but I should think that already


James Lorimer Ilsley: I wish the hon. member for Kindersley would elaborate his point, because he has a different understanding of it.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Section 575C says:
A person shall not be found to be a habitual criminal unless the judge or jury as the case may be, finds on evidence . . .
There is only one condition there as to what they have to find.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Read it.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: (a) that since attaining the age of eighteen years he has at least three times previously to the conviction of the crime charged in the indictment. been eonvieted of an indictable offence for which he was liable to at least five years' imprisonment, whether any such previous conviction was before or after the passing of this part and that he is leading persistently a criminal life . . .


James Lorimer Ilsley: "And that he is leading persistently a criminal life."

Criminal Code


Frank Eric Jaenicke: That is all they have to find.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is what I say, and that is plenty.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I would suggest, as I did before, that there should be evidence of his mental attitude toward our accepted standards of morality.
Mr. ILSLEY': Too indefinite; too vague.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to refer to subsection 4 of section 575C. We are setting up machinery to punish-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Would my hon. friend just defer his remarks for a moment, until I clean up these other questions?


John George Diefenbaker: I thought the
minister was going to answer all the questions at once.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps that is what I should do, but I will try to answer them as we go along. The hon. member for Spadina raised the point that this prejudices the fair trial of the accused, because the indictment will have on its face the charge that the offender is a habitual criminal in addition to the charge concerning the offence for which he is being tried. I was not aware of the practice to which the hon. gentleman refers; that is, of handing the jury the indictment. I should have thought the accused would be arraigned on the offence for which he was being tried and, after that matter was settled, without any knowledge on the part of the jury of the other charge, that then and only then would he be charged with the other charge, and it would be dealt with. This is the language used in the English statute. I will read it, so that there will be no doubt. This is the prevention of crime act, 1908, and section 10(3) is in these words:
In any indictment under this section it shall be sufficient, after charging the crime, to state that the offender is a habitual criminal.
(4) In the proceedings on the indictment the offender shall in the first instance be arraigned on so much only of the indictment as charges the crime, and if on arraignment he pleads guilty or is found guilty by the jury, the jury shall, unless he pleads guilty to being a habitual criminal, be charged to inquire whether he is a habitual criminal, and in that case it shall not be necessary to swear the jury again:
I [DOT] think we have followed that language
here.


David Arnold Croll: But I think the deputy minister will tell the minister that the procedure followed in this province is that the indictment must gt>
with the jury into the jury room. That is the common practice, so that it be-"
comes a serious matter. You might let the section stand to look it up and see what may be the answer.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, if the indictment were handed to the jury with the record of three convictions on it and the accused had not testified, the conviction would be quashed because evidence of bad character would have been before the jury, which would be fatal.


David Arnold Croll: But that is what this provides.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not say I
disagree with my hon. friend, but I do not think any judge would allow an indictment to go to the jury upon which appeared the record of previous convictions.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Xo crown prosecutor would do it, anyway.


John George Diefenbaker: It is only a matter of procedure in any event, and I submit that it would be a simple matter of directing the attention of the courts to the fact that such a course should not be followed; and it is not being ratified by the passing of this bill in its present form because it is only a matter of procedure. Today there are cases where the penalty is larger because of a previous conviction. In certain types of obtaining under false pretences the penalty provided is larger on a second offence. So this is what is done. That is inserted in the indictment and not read at the time of the arraignment of the prisoner. Then, when the jury retires, invariably the judge directs the attention of the crown prosecutor to the fact that the indictment contains the record of a previous conviction, and that portion of the indictment is deleted and the' indictment, with only the charge in it, is handed to the jury.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am pleased to have that information. Another hon. member has brought to my attention the provisions of section 851 of our criminal code. It is a long section, but perhaps I had better read it, because it is a precedent for this type of section:
In any indictment for an indictable offence, committed after a previous conviction or convictions for any indictable offence or offences, or for any offence or offences, for which a greater punishment may be inflicted by reason of such previous conviction, it shall be sufficient, after charging the subsequent offence, to state that the offender was at a certain time and place, or at certain times and places, convicted of an indictable offence or offences, or of an offence or offences, as the case may be, and to state the substance and effect only, omitting the formal part of the indictment and' conviction, or of the summary conviction, as "the case may be, for the previous offence or offences, without otherwise describing the previous offence or offences.
Criminal Code

So, as the hon. member for Lake Centre has pointed out, certain indictments contain reference to previous convictions, and apparently the courts find no difficulty in preventing that fact from prejudicing the fair trial of the accused.


Mr. McIVOR:: I do not know a great deal about law, but I must confess that I am afraid of this amendment. It seems to indicate that, no matter what influence is brought to bear on a man's life, he is not capable of change. I should like to think that no one is so depraved that he cannot be changed for the better.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What is contemplated under the section is that habitual offenders will be placed under preventive detention, on an indeterminate sentence, but that their conduct will be reviewed by the Minister of Justice. The minister must keep in touch with that man's conduct, and provision is made therefor in the section. He must review at least every three years and, as a matter of fact, a review will be made by the remissions branch more often than that. The sentence is not a life sentence, necessarily. It contemplates release, if a man reforms.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: That is good.


Thomas Langton Church: I should have thought that, in respect of this innovation which the minister brings to the house for the first time, he might better have waited until he saw the results of his prison reform programme. I would point out to the committee that we have had a report with respect to prison reform before us for many years, but nothing was done about it until about two years ago when the minister took office. He has appointed an officer for this purpose.
Would it not be better, when adopting a new system of this kind, which may be upset by the courts later on, to wait until we see what the results will be of the proposals for prison reform? In the first place, the minister has appointed a chief inspector and deputy minister, and he has made a report. A bill was passed only a few days ago in this connection. We should wait to see the development of the penal institutions being conducted. After every great war, there has always been a wave of crime and of suggestions with respect to these institutions.
One of the cardinal principles of Magna Carta is that the people shall have a large share in the administration of criminal justice.
. Whether these institutions are rightly or wrongly managed, the fact is that they are managed by crown officers, and the public

have no right to enter them. Boards of visitors consist of members of the House of Commons and of the Senate, and the heads of the provinces, lieutenant governors and others. But how many of them have made visits to those institutions in the last few years? I was told by one warden that he has not seen a single soul.
Yet we go to work and, in one sweep, we pass this new section. I say those who are habitual offenders are the victims of a vicious, half-baked system. We have never had a real system of prison reform in Canada; it is a relic of the middle ages. Many of the provincial, municipal and dominion institutions were started before confederation against all known laws of public hygiene. We should wait to see what the results of prison reform, so far on paper, will be. As I have said, "Abandon hope all ye who enter here" should be placed over the whole of them. I have seen some of those institutions. I am familiar with the one at Guelph, from criticism of Ontario's court of appeal. The city of Toronto has spent large sums of money to help this type of offender. In 1912 it spent a large sum of money in connection with the establishment of a farm for young men on Yonge Street, and in 1914, on one at Concord, in West York, three miles away, for women. Then, in this connection we must think of the Mercer reformatory for girls and women; which was established in 1866, a long time ago.
How can we expect anyone placed in institutions like those not to be a habitual offender. In our prison system in Canada we are twenty-five years behind the old country, so far as prison reform is concerned. We have never had any updo-date, national Borstal system.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, we have in British Columbia.


Thomas Langton Church: To a large extent the officials are appointed, and it is proposed by the hon. member for Lake Centre to transfer them so that they will come under the civil service commission. These officials, wardens, guards and all of them, are crown officers. No one from the outside, not even a grand jury, goes in to see what is going on. Is there any wonder that there are habitual offenders? They are the victims of our vicious system. Our institutions have been condemned, and reference has been made to them by Chief Justice Robertson of the court of appeal of Ontario, and Chief Justice McRuer, of the high court of Ontario, trial division. Our institutions have been severely criticized by various judges

Criminal Code
of the court of appeal and- other courts and magistrates, that they have no place to send first offenders to. Ontario is adopting new places.
Attack has been made against the indeterminate type of sentence. The late Chief Justice R. M. Meredith, one of the ablest judges on the circuit for forty years, said that the indeterminate system had resulted to some extent in the development of perpetual offenders, and he gave as a dictum, he, questioned whether the indeterminate sentence was not ultra vires.
If you ask me, the bringing of the attorneys general of the provinces into it is just a roundabout way of killing it, because one attorney general will act one way, and another will act another way. The proposals in the various following sections and this dual roundabout way of it all will be condemned.
The system will fail- -because it is not founded on real prison reform. The explanatory note with respect to section 18 states that this part is new and makes provision for the preventive detention of habitual criminals. Is it any wonder we have them, with the way in which Canada has acted? Then the section goes on to refer to the proceedings on crime, and then there is inquiry as to whether the offender is an habitual criminal. Then we find that the provision is retroactive, and that a sentence may be commuted and turned into a habitual sentence, a contradiction of terms and sentences. Where are they to be housed? These institutions are overloaded now.
I doubt if this system has been very much of a success in the United States because the repeaters are there coming back. I read something in the press only yesterday with respect to the condition in the Mercer reformatory at Toronto, where eighty per cent are repeaters. From what I have seen of it and the pictures in the Globe and Mail, that institution is one of the worst factors in the prevention of real prison reform. I have not been in it; but, as head of a police system, I had some knowledge of it. It, too, has been condemned, and was to be sold and tom down, which it should have been long ago.
I am not criticizing the officials there or any other place; far from it. They are men and women who give their life to this work, and should be complimented upon so doing. But there are others who are not so efficient. Many have been appointed under the patronage system, and they must learn only by experience. Before their appointment, they have n-o experience at all, and with such a system of prison reform is it any wonder there are repeaters?
I should like to compliment the minister upon one thing, and that is that, since taking office, he has begun reform. No doubt it will take a long time to carry it out, but I should like to see some of it done at once and completed before he adopts this new system. After all is said and done, we must not forget the liberty of the subject. There is a great deal of talk about that. This provision is going pretty far, especially at a critical time like this. But if there is to be such a policy, do not hand it over to the attorneys general of the provinces so that they will do nothing about it. Make a success of reform first, before we adopt this.
Mr. D1EFENBAKER: There is only one section concerning which I should like some information. So far as part X (A) is concerned, which covers habitual criminals, I believe the minister has gone too fast in introducing this provision before bringing into effect a system of rehabilitation as recommended by the Archambault commission. I agree with the hon. member for Broadview that what we are doing here is bringing in punitive legislation against the habitual offender, without having given him an opportunity of rehabilitation after discharge from a penal institution. I am not going to deal once more with that subject because I have dealt with it on previous occasions, but I do feel that more attention should be given to rehabilitation by carrying out the recommendations to which I have already referred. The idea of establishing two penal institutions wherein young prisoners can be removed from association with old and experienced prisoners should first be tried out in order that new opportunities may be given to those who, having once served, are returned to their ordinary life. However, the government has taken the stand that this measure should be introduced now. I would point out that in Great Britain this type of legislation was not introduced until every means of reformation had been exhausted by means of the Borstal and other institutions to assist those who have been punished for crime following their discharge from the penal institution. The subsection to which I take objection is subsection 4, which reads:
A person shall not be tried on a charge of being a habitual criminal unless
(a) the attorney general of the province in which the accused is to be tried consents thereto.
If being an habitual criminal is to be the subject of punishment, why should there be a provision enabling the attorney general of one province to determine that proceedings shall be taken under this section and the
505S
Criminal Code

*attorney general of another province to determine otherwise under like circumstances? Criminal law being what it is, it should be uniformly enforced in all parts of the dominion without regard to the wishes of individual attorneys general. In this section there is a marked departure from the uniformity which should be aimed at. This section means that for the first time in the history of our criminal law there will be a departure from uniformity of application in all parts of the dominion. The application of this section of the criminal law is to be left in the hands of the provincial attorneys general.
Hon. members will see what will happen. There may be an attorney general who is of my mind. If I were in the position of an attorney general I would be opposed to allowing proceedings to be taken against a man as a habitual criminal unless the opportunity had first been given for reformation. I would look at the matter from the point of view of one who had for years been somewhat concerned with defence rather than prosecution. On the other hand, there may be an attorney general who for years had been a crown prosecutor or crown attorney, and his attitude of mind would necessarily be different from mine. The result would be that a person convicted of three crimes in one province could commit a fourth crime, and because of the attitude of the attorney general in the province in which he had committed that crime he could be prosecuted as a habitual criminal, or not prosecuted.
I urge upon the minister that this introduces into our criminal law a lack of uniformity, in that the person in one province may be prosecuted as a habitual criminal, whereas if the same person committed a crime in another province he would not be subject to prosecution.


Mr. MacNAUGHT:: What about nolle
prosequi?


John George Diefenbaker: The principle of
nolle prosequi is that the attorney general of a province may determine that there is no evidence upon which a conviction can be registered, or he may conclude that a man has already been sufficiently punished for the offence committed. For instance, it arises quite frequently that a. man is charged with three different thefts. He is sentenced on those thefts and,' later on, a fourth theft arises. Instead of having that person again go through the mill of a trial the attorney general may direct the crown prosecutor or the crown attorney to return a nolle prosequi."

Under those circumstances the prosecution would not be proceeded with. In that principle there is no lack of uniformity. That principle dates back to the time of habeas corpus when, for the first time, the crown vested in its servants the right to direct that in the interests of justice prosecution ought not to take place. But this is a departure which I view with considerable alarm. It places the human factor foremost in the determination of whether or not a person shall be proceeded against.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: In certain provinces they will not prosecute in connection with slot machines.


John George Diefenbaker: That matter rests with the province because property and civil rights are involved. That point was raised in connection with confiscation. I believe in a case in Windsor, and it was argued that the property and civil rights of the province were being interfered with. For that reason, matters having to do with slot machines rest with the provincial attorney general.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: What about bingo games?


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend may know something about bingo. That is not a case where the attorney general of the province would determine whether prosecution shall take place.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Oh, yes.


John George Diefenbaker: In one city in my province you may operate a bingo game while in another you may not. That is because of the different attitude adopted by the officers in charge of prosecution. There is not one law in one part of the province and another law in another part.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: That is not what is happening here; the law will not be different.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not advancing this argument in any contentious way.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: I know that.


John George Diefenbaker: I am trying to point out the situation which, I think, will arise.
I tried to put myself in the position of the attorney general of Saskatchewan. As one who is used t-o defence, I naturally would object without opportunities for reformation to penalizing a person because he is a habitual criminal. On the other hand, my hon. friend the Postmaster General, who had a most distinguished career as a prosecutor, would, if he were in that- position, naturally and instinctively and subconsciously look at the case from the point of view of the prosecutor.

Criminal Code
Mr. LE8AGE: He has changed a lot since.


John George Diefenbaker: I find him to be a most kindly man; but I am speaking of his psychological reactions, of emotions that affect us all. That is why I raise my objection against this section, because I believe it means the first departure from a uniform application of the criminal Law everywhere in Canada.


Mr.   LESLEY@: I shall not answer the first part of my hon. friend's remarks about there having been no opportunity for reformation, because I cannot accept responsibility on the part of previous governments of Canada for the fact that men commit crimes.
But we have a situation where some persons are apparently going to commit crimes every time they get out and have a chance. The first object of criminal law is the protection of society and this seems to be necessary for the protection of society. My hon. friend says that it will induce a lack of uniformity in the law; he referred to the law of England and undertook to show that the right of the attorney general to direct that no prosecutions take place is there and has been carried into the law of Canada and attorneys general have the right to call off prosecutions. The same principle was incorporated in the British legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: Why not say the Attorney General of Canada? In England they have only one attorney general and you can get uniformity.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not our system in Canada. Nothing is more fundamental in our system than the administration of justice and the enforcement of law are the responsibility of the provinces, not of the Attorney General of Canada, but of the attorney general of each province. In England they have passed similar legislation providing that no charge of being an habitual criminal shall be inserted in an indictment without the consent of the director of public prosecutions. They put that in, because it is a serious thing to charge a person with being an habitual criminal, leading a persistently criminal life. They wanted to make it clear that he did not have to be charged with that in every instance, and so they said that the consent of the director of public prosecutions would be required. We are putting in the same provision hare in Canada and substituting the only officials we can substitute under our constitution, and that is the attorney general of the province for the director of general prosecutions. That is not peculiar to this act at all. It is worth while to put on record some of the sections where the same principle applies. 1 will give the numbers of the sections first: Sections 205A,
592, 594, 596, 597, 598, 777 and 825. These relate to various offences with which persons cannot be charged without the leave of the attorney general of the province and, in some cases, the Attorney General of Canada where the matter has some peculiar connection with dominion jurisdiction. Section 205A deals with parading while nude, and so on, and the section concludes with these words:
No action or prosecution for a violation of this section shall be commenced without the leave of the attorney general for the province in which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
Section 592 relates to the offence of disclosing official secrets and provides that no person shall be prosecuted for that offence without the consent of the attorney general of the province or of the Attorney General of Canada. Section 593 makes necessary the leave of the Attorney General of Canada. Section 594 deals with explosive substances and there can be no prosecution without the consent of the attorney general. Section 596 deals with criminal breach of trust-no prosecution without the consent of the attorney general. Similarly for the other sections I have mentioned. So there is a class of offences where no proceedings can be taken without the consent of the attorney general. It is the attorney general who prefers the indictment through his officer, the crown prosecutor. This makes it clear that he is not obliged in every case to prefer this charge. I do not see how you could have it any other way.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I wanted to support the hon. member for Lake Centre in his plea to the minister, but the minister has already given his answer. The idea struck me as he was speaking his last sentence, why not change subsection 4 (a) by saying that consent must be obtained either from the provincial attorney general or the Attorney General of Canada. The minister has just read a section where the consent was possible either of the attorney general of the province or the Attorney General of Canada.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Attorney General of Canada comes in where the matter is one in which the dominion has definite concern. Section 593, for example, provides:
No one holding any judicial office shall be prosecuted for the offence of judicial corruption, without the leave of the Attorney General of Canada.
It is the government of Canada that appoints the judges. That is tied up to the dominion. But the ordinary, prosecution of criminals is a provincial matter, and I 9o not think it would be proper for the dominion government to endeavour to project itself
Criminal Code



COM'MONS

[Stage Direction]
into that field by trying to say what charges should be laid by provincial attorneys general and what should not, because that is what it would amount to.
Frank Eric Jaenicke: I would suggest to the minister that the criminal code provides for a penitentiary system which is under the jurisdiction of the dominion and that the man who would be tried for being a habitual criminal will have spent at least one or two terms in the penitentiary. Therefore the federal department would be much better able to judge whether that man should be tried as a habitual criminal, because it would have the information from the superintendent of the penitentiary and the penitentiary officials as to just what sort of person the man was.


Maurice Hartt: I do not rise to discuss this clause in a spirit of criticism. It is perhaps due to some mechanism in me that I cannot conceive or understand how we can incarcerate anybody by anticipation. I know it is the principle of magna carta that no man shall be held in prison without having previously been judged by his peers. That is an established principle we were all brought up to respect and to follow. And if I were met with the answer that the man had been judged because he had committed three offences and that is why he should be incarcerated for an indefinite period-that is something I just cannot assimilate. It makes me think of the poem of Alexander Pope who said: "It is a question whether want of skill appears in writing or in judging ill." By what measure of psychological conception, by what interpretation of law, by what system of calculation can we arrive at the conclusion that, because a man has committed an offence three times, he is therefore a habitual criminal and whether, with the consent or without the consent of the attorney general, he can be put away, subject to revision which will always confirm the reports of the superintendent of the penitentiary? I am wondering whether we are not committing a crime against criminals.
I have seen hon. members sitting on this side of the fence; I have seen a man psychologically, perhaps by a perverted mentality, by a sadistic attitude who will say, "come on; let us put him away." Society admits that it can do nothing with its offenders; that it cannot reform them; that it cannot redeem them; that it has gone bankrupt in social conduct and that we want to put a man away because we anticipate he is going to commit a crime. You say to him, Well, this man has been condemned three times. This is an importation into Canada. I do not IMr. Ilsley.]
want any precedents cited from the state of Michigan which condemns a man probably to life for having committed three small crimes. I do not want to play with the gastric juices of any judge who some morning may have an attack of indigestion and say, "I am going to put away this fellow." The word "judge" does not scare me. Judges are not infallible. Even God Almighty does not want to destroy the sinner. All He wants is for him to redeem himself. Here we are smarter than God Almighty. We are going to do something that God would not do. I want to know by what standard of measurement, by what norm we come to the conclusion. I know that some psychologists, some psychoanalysts, some of those who probe the minds and souls of men have something to say about such treatment. Personally I think they know nothing at all about it, because if they were psychoanalyzed in turn it would be found that it was too soon to let them out and too late to let them in.
I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I do not understand by what principle this is being done. Is it because some men want to show their usefulness? I?p to the seventeenth century there were 175 crimes punishable by death in England, which did not deter crime. It has been going on. I remember reading of a case where a man witnessed the hanging in Virginia of a man who had picked the pocket of somebody. While he was witnessing the hanging, he was picking the pocket of somebody else. Did that stop the habitual criminal?
I do not want to compare the legislators of this house to the dictators of Europe who, being personally corrupted and perverted, infused their attitude into the administration of their respective governments and put people in concentration camps under the pretext that it was protective custody.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And gassed them.


Maurice Hartt: Gassed them and made soap out of them. It was a paying proposition. They were doing it for the good of society.
I do not know of any law that is not introduced for the good of society. Canada has got along well for eighty years. We have a criminal code that is as rigid as can be. We have noted every crime that can be committed that is punishable on its own merits and by judging each incident. Why is it that we have to give this latitude of incarcerating men by anticipation. Who is to read their minds? Who is to take that responsibility? We are somewhat civilized. I said "somewhat".


John Ritchie MacNicol: Oftentimes we are far from being civilized.

Criminal Code


Maurice Hartt: I should like to agree with the hon. gentleman, but I must be very careful. The point that I am trying to make to the committee is, what caused the necessity?
Some hon. MEMBERS : Carried.


Maurice Hartt: Some hon. gentlemen are in a hurry and want this bill carried. I have no doubt they will carry it, but let it be on their conscience. They have to remember that they are the elected representatives of the people. It may inadvertently strike the son of any man who is here, and then they will say, how foolish the law must have been.
What 1 object to, Mr. Chairman, is the principle of the thing, to condemn a man for an offence he has not committed. It is not British; it is not Canadian. We have never heard of such things. Who is to review the case? With all due respect to the deputy minister of justice-he may be a man of great knowledge-he cannot review all cases. Some junior comes into the Department of Justice. Hon. members ought to see some opinions handed out in the name of justice. I do not think there is a court in Canada which would uphold the-m,. but that would be the opinion and the man would remain incarcerated, We are cons'oled by the assurance of the Minister of Justice who, I know, is a fair man, an honest man, that the case will be reviewed every three years. What a splendid vacation, to put a man away on some subjective suspicion because he was condemned three times before. There are a lot of men who are not caught the third time and are still loose, and often these men are to go away for life. I ask the Minister of Justice to consider the matter. It is an Americanism we have imported. The state of Michigan has it. I think the state of New York has it; but it is a state law; it is not a federal law and does not apply to the whole of the United States. Here we are passing a law that is going into perpetuity, that because a man has committed a crime three times he ipso facto is condemned as a habitual criminal.
On this point I must agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre. We want to protect ourselves and excuse ourselves for our failure to reform these criminals. Whether it is psychological, or whatever it is, we have done nothing in Canada to reform the criminal.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Not of any consequence.


Maurice Hartt: No, we have not done anything in Canada. For a prisoner to live in incarceration, society will consider that he has paid his penalty. In order to clear ourselves of that delicate consciousness of ours, we say we can do nothing, that the man is a habitual criminal. I hope that the Minister
of Justice will reflect on the matter. I am not here to teach him. I know he is a good lawyer; I know he knows the social conditions under which we live. I know there are some inadvertent moments in the playing around with this problem of attorneys general. I agree again with the hon. member for Lake Centre. I have my suspicions, because I do not know who are the gods and who are the devils. I do not know who is to judge advantageously to himself and who may play polities with a law such as this. We have heard of the principle of nolle prosequi. An hon. member was asked about the case of nolle prosequi. That is a thing they play with. In criminal law constitutionally it has become general. That is the constitution of Canada. Of course the attorneys general always have the discretion. Then they have to resort to nolle prosequi, no proof to proceed further. Those who practise law know very well what it means. I appeal to the Minister of Justice and to hon. members to reconsider the idea of putting a man in a concentration camp and to justify our action 'to say, "Now, you are a bad little boy; we are going to call you a habitual criminal" I think we are committing a crime against the criminals.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I just want to say that I believe the hon. member for Cartier is thinking too much about the criminal and too little about society for whose protection we have to pass these laws. I think that is the fallacy of his approach. The important thing, after all, is the protection of society, and I cannot work up very great feelings of righteous indignation in favour of the suggestion that we are unjust in this law to men who have been guilty of serious crimes three times, as shown by their convictions, and who have committed a fourth crime and have been found by judge and jury to be leading persistently criminal lives. That is what they are punished' for and not for any crime they have not committed. They are not punished in anticipation, but for what they have done, and this is a form of punishment which is necessary for the protection of society.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: If a man is charged on three different counts and is found guilty on all three, that is only one conviction? It is the same crime.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, I think so.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend has raised a point that is worth serious consideration, because the section reads:
A person shall not be found to be a habitual criminal unless the judge or jury as the case may be, finds on evidence,
Criminal Code

(a) that since attaining the age of eighteen years he has at least three times previously to the conviction of the crime charged in the indictment, been convicted of an indictable offence for which he was liable to at least five years' imprisonment . . .
-and also that he is leading a persistently criminal life. The hon. member has raised a point that is particularly sound. If a person were charged with theft, obtaining under false pretences, and a third offence within the same indictment, all of which were subject to punishment of at least five years' imprisonment, and if he were found guilty of all three he might very well come within these provisions.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Or even three counts of breaking in at night would be sufficient.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I take it to mean, different times.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: It, does not say that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, that is what it states. I certainly intended, and I think the intention of the law is, that if he is charged in one indictment with several crimes, the convictions on that indictment are deemed to be at one time.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: They may not be.


Georges-Henri Héon: Could it not be stated, three different indictments and three separate convictions?


Joseph Arthur Lesage: I have seen it happen that there were ten counts of breaking in-


Georges-Henri Héon: On one indictment.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Yes. He pleaded guilty on four and not guilty on six. He was found guilty, later, on three, so that there were two convictions at different times on the same indictment, and it is possible that there might be three convictions on the same indictment at different times.


Georges-Henri Héon: That would make a good point for appeal.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I certainly intended that the convictions on one indictment should be deemed to be the one conviction at that time, so that you could not say he was convicted at different times simply because different convictions took place as a result of one indictment. I should think, if there were any doubt about the matter, the attorney general would proceed accordingly.


John George Diefenbaker: Another case that might be imagined is this. Suppose a person has lived a decent life and suddenly he begins to commit crimes. He commits three different

thefts in different parts of his province all wuthin a matter of a few days, and he is charged in point A, in point B and in point C and is convicted in each. You have three convictions and the man is a habitual criminal, unless some change is made here.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It must also be established that he is leading a persistently criminal life, and I should think that would be a case where he wmuld not, even be charged with it.


Georges-Henri Héon: He would have to be found guilty of being a habitual criminal.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Mr. BENTLEY:: Is it intended that the person charged with being an habitual criminal shall have served a sentence on each of three different occasions; that is to say, that he shall have served three sentences for three different crimes before this would apply?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Thomas John Bentley: Could it not be worded in that way, then, so that he would not be serving two or three sentences concurrently, but three separate sentences one after another? That is what the minister is trying to get at.


Georges-Henri Héon: It says "convicted".


James Lorimer Ilsley: The important thing is that he be convicted at successive times. The essence of the section, is that there be conviction at this particular time of his life, and a conviction again at another time, and a third conviction at still another time, and that it be established also that he is leading a persistently criminal life. That is the intention, and that is the way in which it should be viewed by the attorneys general who administer it. I think the intention is clear enough.


Thomas John Bentley: I believe that is what is meant, but legal opinion here seems to differ.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think it is clear.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I suggest 575C (a), at the top of page 7, might be looked at. After the word "imprisonment" there might be added the words "and has served three separate terms of imprisonment for such offences."
Mr. ILSLEY': The trouble there is that the sentence might be suspended. He might have been released on suspended sentence the first time, but that should not prevent him from being regarded as having committed a crime. That was a conviction, and I think that should be counted.	.


Mr. TIMMINS:: It seems to me that, since so much doubt has been cast upon this clause;

Criminal Code
since we are dealing with the freedom of people, and so many proper and valid objections have been raised, this might very well be left over for one more year so that it might be given serious study. We cannot be trifling with a few words which we may insert and which may be interpreted quite differently from the way in which the minister interprets them here. I am just throwing out that suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 19 to 23 inclusive agreed to.
On section 24-'Appeal on ground involving question of law.
James Lorimer Ilsley: There is to be a slight change here. The word "that", the first word on line 22, must be deleted. It is really a clerical error.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 25 and 26 agreed to.
On section 27-Fees.
Joseph Arthur Lesage: I should like to draw attention to the fact that in connection with summonses taken out by officers of the mounted police it has been the practice of the mounted police to serve these summonses themselves, even at distances as great as twenty miles and at places where there are bailiffs who could perform the service. The result is that the defendant has to pay large costs. I have seen one case in which the costs amounted to $18 for the service of the summons, whereas if it had been sent to a bailiff the cost would have been only fifty cents, because he lived less than a mile from the person served.


Georges-Henri Héon: C'est le meme principe que dans un cas de procedure civile.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Yes. In our code of civil procedure in the province of Quebec we have a rule that the greatest amount which may be charged for the service of a summons or writ is the amount that may be charged by the bailiff living nearest the defendant. This provision in the code will create an injustice. It is not the same thing as the case of an arrest. As a matter of fact, in Quebec the department of the attorney general always used the services of bailiffs, and the officers of the provincial police or of the liquor commission do not serve these summonses. I think it is only fair that they should be served by bailiffs, and it would not require any change in the law; it would only require instructions to the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police. It is as simple as that, and it would correct an injustice which is contrary to the general practice in the province.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Does not the criminal code say the summons ha_s to be served by a constable?


Joseph Arthur Lesage: No, it does not.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will give consideration to the hon. gentleman's suggestion. I was not aware of the practice he mentions, and I do not think it can be extensive.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: It is extensive. As far as I know, it is done in every case in the province of Quebec, and I have had many complaints.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall look into the matter and see whether my hon. friend's point can be met.


Calvert Charlton Miller: In the schedule the witness fee is fixed at $3. That is too much, if I may say so. In the west you may bring six or eight or ten witnesses in a small case, even one heard by a justice. If that is done in trials of small importance the costs are made too great. People cannot afford them; they will go to gaol instead of paying a fine and costs. In many of these small trials they have more witnesses than the courtroom can hold.


George Russell Boucher: I think it is recognised that even these fees are subject to the discretion of the presiding judge or magistrate. One hon. member spoke of the excessive cost of having summonses served in certain districts. I believe the presiding magistrate or judge sees that these summonses are served in the most economical way possible, and police officers are not permitted to travel long distances and run up large costs. I know in my own experience the presiding magistrate or judge generally insists upon the most economical service being carried out. because if we run up heavy costs in court actions we shall do more harm than good. The minister might take that into consideration and see that the fees are only permissive, giving the magistrate or judge discretion in awarding them.


William Alexander McMaster: I would suggest that
there be a basic rate for service by constables. It does seem unfair that because a man lives twenty miles from the county town it should cost him more to be served. The offence is no greater than in the case of a man living in town. I should think that, by averaging the amount so that everyone would pay the same for service, we would get a fair method.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I should like to support that suggestion. In the west they have long
Criminal Code

distances to travel. Sometimes a man must be brought from thirty or forty miles away, and even farther in my own district. The costs of serving witnesses, with mileage and so on, become so burdensome the people simply cannot pay them.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Carried.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Can we not get an answer?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If there is anything wrong with this scale of fees we should not pass it. As I understand the objections that have been raised, they are, first, that the witness fee of $3 a day is too much, and, then, that the fees of the constables should be averaged in some way. Were there any other suggestions I did not hear? I believe those were the only two. At the moment I do not see how this averaging that has been suggested could be done. I believe this is the system followed everywhere.
Mr. BOL'CHER: I believe the minister understands the situation which is encountered more particularly in the rural districts, where they have long distances to travel. In this city, for example, costs are much higher in the county police court than in the city police court. In the city court they can serve individuals charged with various offences within a very short time, and the costs are reasonable. But take the case of an individual who has committed an offence, who lives some distance from the city and who has to be served with a process. If a policeman is sent out thirty or forty miles to bring in a witness one will find that the same two men, charged with exactly the same offence, will pay entirely different penalties for their offences. I say a gross injustice is being done, and having that disparity does not work to the benefit of proper law administration. If the minister could equalize it by having a flat rate I believe there would be a better administration of justice, and in the end it would be much better than the scale basis. Presiding judges or magistrates may have some discretion, but they do not always use it. One can realize that particularly in connection with offences where fines are imposed; and where the fines are going to one department of government or another, the magistrate must consider seriously the costs of serving processes as well as the collection of fines from the culprits. The accused person is often handicapped thereby.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not believe that I shall offer any amendment to this, because much consideration has been given to this matter of fees. I have been making some inquiries
tMr. Miller.]
from one hon. member who has had considerable experience in at least one province in respect of witness fees, and he informs me that there is considerable difficulty in having witnesses attend, at all, because the fees have been so low.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: They claim it is not
sufficient.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I suppose the witnesses are obliged to come.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Bu't they complain about it.


George Russell Boucher: Anyone who has had any experience in the administration of justice can assure the minister that, no matter what fees were paid to witnesses, they would not want to come. I do not think any witness will come to court simply because the fee is raised.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 28 to 31 inclusive agreed to.
On section 32-Reduction of imprisonment on part payment of sum adjudged to be paid.
Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Is this not a vicious section, in that it seems to make the court a collection agency? A man receives a term of imprisonment for non-payment of a sum of money, and then he can pay part of it and, by so doing, receive a reduction in the number of days he must serve. Probably that is a benevolent thing to do, but it is hardily in accord with the manner in which we carry on British justice.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This amendment was recommended by the commissioners on the uniformity of legislation, and it seems fair. On what ground does the hon. member object?


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: In many cases matters are rushed to court because the damages are not taken care of. The result is that a conviction is registered and money is to be paid. This indicates that the force of law would' be used to force a man to pay.


Ernest Bertrand: This reduction of sentence when the accused has been convicted and is subject to fine and imprisonment applies only to the fine being paid to the crown. It does not apply to a remittance of money when a magistrate orders an accused person to make a remittance. An unjust situation arises when a man who has been convicted and is subject to fine or imprisonment does not happen to have enough money to pay all the fine. He has to go to gaol because he cannot pay the $100 he has been fined, when he has only $50 with which to wipe out half the term of imprisonment. I believe this provision is fair to the accused man.

Forest Conservation


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is a. clerical error in the first line of section 32 and I will ask my colleague to make the necessary amendment.


Ernest Bertrand: That the words "that the said act be amended'' in the first fine of section 32 be stricken out and the words "the said act is further amended" be substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 33 and 34 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 377 to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
Howard Charles Green: Would the minister make a statement?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, this bill was requested- within the last two weeks by the government of Nova Scotia, and it is rendered necessary by reason of the fact that the Halifax industrial school will soon close down. In Nova Scotia Protestant boys are sent to the Halifax industrial school and Roman Catholic boys to the St. Patrick's home. A new school is being established called the Nova Scoita school for boys, and- is to be added to the list of institutions mentioned in the Prisons and Reformatories Act. The act will provide that boys of either the Protestant or Roman Catholic faiths may be sent to the Nova Scotia school for boys. This bill was introduced because of a recent request by the attorney general of Nova Scotia.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, July 1, consideration in committee of Bill No. 362, respecting the protection and conservation of the forests on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains-Mr. Howe-Mr. Macdonald (Bra-ntford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Chairman, for perhaps half a dozen or more years I had the
pleasure of travelling over the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains, and at that time I became greatly alarmed at the lack of protection against fire and other things which might destroy the forests. I am rising to support this bill strongly for the second time. I appreciate that the minister who is piloting this bill is doing so because the minister in charge of the department is away ill. I am not going to extend my remarks any longer than necessary because I am in favour of the bill.
There is a great need for what this bill sets out to accomplish. Anyone going through that area cannot help but be struck by the destruction that has occurred. I have a report here showing the results of ten years of administration, five years under the federal government and five years under the provincial government. In giving these figures, I do not intend for one moment to censure the provincial government, because their administration of the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains was during the depression yeans when, as everyone knows, revenues were at their lowest ebb. The government of Alberta could not have been expected to provide the same standards of protection that had been provided by the federal government. I have a letter from the department giving the fire losses on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains at the headwaters of the Saskatchewan river for the years 1925 to 1936. During the period 1925 to 1930 inclusive, when the federal government was administering the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains, the total acreage of timber land destroyed was 58,530 acres, or an average of 11,756 acres a year. During the five years 1931 to 1936 inclusive, when the provincial government was in control- this was at the very depth of the depression when little money was available for these matters-the losses amounted to 235,155 acres, or an average of 47,031 acres a year. That is a terrific loss.
The department was not able to give me any figures following 1936; but if the same rate continued for the ten years since that time, on the basis of 47,031 acres destroyed each year it would mean that another 470,000 acres of timber land could have been destroyed. Whether or not that is the case does not matter for the purposes of my argument, because I want to support the programme the government is now putting forward to assist the Alberta government in preventing the destruction of forests on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains.
If I had a complaint to make it would be that this bill should have been introduced
Forest Conservation

years ago. As the committee knows, I have advocated such a bill for quite a few years. I am not going to complain over that not having been done, because during that period every dollar was required to prosecute a victorious war. First, because of the depression and, second, because of the war these forests have been destroyed to an extent far beyond what they should have been.
Their importance is hardly estimable. I made a survey last fall in connection with the forests on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains at the headwaters of the Platte river in the western states. I was informed that the forests on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains at the headwaters of the Platte river-and this would apply also to the Missouri river-contained approximately one-eighth of the forest wealth of the basin of the Platte. I do not know whether that is the case in Canada, but I imagine it would be safe to say that the forest resources on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains at the headwaters of the Saskatchewan river would be approximately one-eighth of the wealth and the water resources fifty per cent of the whole basin of the Saskatchewan, which is approximately 149,000 square miles.
The forest wealth on the eastern slope is far greater per square mile or per acre than it is in any other part of the watershed where there is so much in the way of scrub trees, jack pine and trees of little consequence whatever. On the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains there are many fine stands of timber. The importance of the eastern slope to that whole area lies in the fact that in the past it did retain for a long time into the spring and right into the summer vast sheets of ice and snow, and by the retention of that ice and snow the flow in the Saskatchewan river was more even. That, of course, goes without saying. But the reverse effect has followed from the destruction of the forests, and the figures show that the destruction has been great. The result has been that the flow of the Saskatchewan river, as was demonstrated clearly this spring, has been in greater volume than it should have been with the result that it runs off more rapidly and gives little return as it flows down to the sea. In other words, the more that the forests are destroyed by fire, the more rapid is the run-off of the water; and the more the forests are retained, the more permanent the water resources, which are almost priceless to the west, are retained for the benefit of the whole country. So I hope that this legislation will result in more retention of the water resources on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains.
If I have any comment to make on the bill '*itself I would inquire, first, why the commission is to consist of two appointees of the federal government and one from the provincial government. The whole of this work is 'in Alberta; and, since Alberta is vitally interested, why should not two members of the commission be appointed from Alberta and only one from the federal government? Being on the job there all the time, Alberta might be expected to have a more intense interest in the maintenance of the forests than someone appointed from Ottawa. But I am not going to quarrel with that.
I would ask, further, if the measure is to be considered as a more or less permanent arrangement. I believe that the present limit is twenty-five years, and during the first five years this government is to contribute $6,300,000, plus one half of the cost of maintenance, which is estimated at about $250,000 a year. The federal government will contribute up to $200,000 for maintenance if that should be required, the provincial contribution to maintenance being $125,000 a year. I am not able to say whether that is enough or not. I would hope that the federal government will not stick at the cost of maintenance if it should cost more than $200,000 a year, because the water resources of the Saskatchewan river constitute the most priceless single resource in the west. If the water resources go, everything goes.
It is not mentioned in the bill, but I presume there wrill have to be some arrangement whereby the commission will consult with the P.F.R.A. The P.F.R.A. is a branch of the federal government and it is engaged just now, and I hope will be more so as the years go by, in the conservation of the water resources of the Saskatchewan river watershed. I should therefore think this commission ought to work in close harmony with the P.F.R.A. Under the bill the P.F.R.A. would have no authority, but I have no doubt that the commissioners from Alberta and the dominion government, knowing full well the importance of water conservation, would cooperate together.
The minister will, I hope, tell us something about the programme. Formerly there was some programme for the setting up of fire towers such as we have all through northern Ontario. There would also have to be reservoirs created, although the bill does not mention that, so that water will be available to put out fires either by hose or to be carried by fire truck to put out the fire. I presume that would be part of the capital investment.
I am glad to see that this government is to contribute $6,300,000 for the next five years.

Forest Conservation
I hope that when the five years expire another grant of equal amount will be made for the same purpose because of the vast importance of the preservation of the water resources on the east slope of the Rocky mountains which comes about through the maintenance of the forests. That makes it an investment that is good business. It is money well spent by this government.
I could say a lot more, but perhaps if I sit down the bill will get through more quickly, and I am anxious to see the bill get through. There may be a few amendments to propose; I do not know whether there are or not; but if the western members have amendments that will be helpful, I shall not oppose them. I am grateful to the government as a humble member and as a Canadian long interested in the preservation of the forests on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains for what the government is doing by this bill. I am anxious to see it in operation.
My Last word is this. While this bill pertains only to the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains, anyone who has travelled through British Columbia must have been horrified times without number as I have been, to contemplate the vast destruction of the forests in that province. One of the most pitiful spectacles one can see is those vast areas along the Fraser and Thompson rivers where formerly thousands and thousands of acres of fine timber grew but which section, through destruction of the forests by fire, is of no more value. So I hope that when the minister finds out, as he will, all the benefits that accrue from reforestation, the preservation of the forests, the conservation of water, the maintenance of the ice and snow which will be the result of reforestation and preservation of the forests, he will bring in another bill to assist British Columbia in the preservation of its forests from destruction bv fire. This is almost too big a job for any single province. I look upon the preservation of the forests of the Rocky mountains on both the eastern slope and the main slope as national business. The headwaters of our great rivers are almost priceless and their maintenance is almost priceless. 1 strongly support this bill.


Angus MacInnis: I am not going to detain the committee very long. I just wish to do something similar to what was done by the hon. member for Davenport who has just taken his seat. I wish to approve the purposes for which this bill is brought before parliament. If there is anything in Canada more important than anything else it is the conservation of our forests. In these circumstances, I believe that the preservation of the forests
and the water resources in this area is more than any one province can undertake by itself. I believe that the government has done the right thing by coming to an agreement with the province whereby the work is to be undertaken by both.
What the hon. member for Davenport said with regard to British Columbia and the destruction and devastation of the forests is true. As a matter of fact he did not put the case as strongly as it should be put. No one can travel by our railways from Alberta through British. Columbia, to the coast without being appalled at the terrible destruction of the finest forest stands in the world. The same is true in a great many cases right across this dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Forests are disappearing. With the disappearance of the forests will soon go the water resources if they are not conserved, and then will come the destruction of the soil through erosion of various kinds.
So far as this group is concerned, this bill will have our full support.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any set government policy with regard to giving assistance and protection against forest fires and in furthering conservation methods?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The ownership of the forests carries with, it the responsibility for their protection. That is the usual policy and has been over the years. When the dominion government owned the natural resources of the prairies it bore all the costs of protecting the forests and fighting forest fires. The reason for the government's intervention in this case is, as I said earlier in the debate, that the three provinces are dependent upon the protection of the forests on the east slope of the Rocky mountains. The purpose of the bill is not primarily to protect the forests, although by protecting the forests we achieve the real object of the bill, which is to protect the runoff in the headwaters of the Saskatchewan valley.
The hon. member for Davenport inquired why the commission had two members appointed by the federal government and, one by the provinces. The reason is that the federal government in this case provides all the capital expenditure. The interests of the three provinces must be protected in the carrying out of the. work. It is suggested that the capital expenditure in the amount of $6,300,000 be expended over six years. That is the fixed capital appropriated by this bill. It is provided that the maintenance expense is voted annually by parliament. If the maintenance expense is over $350,000, the province

Forest Conservation
of Alberta pays $125,000. If the maintenance expense is less, the province pays half the maintenance expense. If it is more than $250,000, the money can still be voted by parliament as required, but the provincial contribution is limited to $125,000.
No one can estimate the value of having the forests of the east slope amply protected. Without that, the run-off of the rivers is disturbed and the cost of regulating the How of thie rivers is greatly increased, if not made impossible. Therefore the commission will be made up of at least one forestry engineer of proven capacity to plan the programme of the development of the east slope, and he will be associated with at least one good businessman to see that the government's money is well spent and a representative of the province who, I am sure, will also be competent in the field in which he is appointed.


Howard Charles Green: Has there been any negotiating with any other province for a similar work?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No other similar situation arises that I know of where the forests of one province protects the headwaters of the rivers of another province.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-'Purposes or objects of board.
John Ritchie MacNicol: With reference to this section, will there be a regular sub-branch having to do with the destruction of insects and so forth in the forests in addition to the fire prevention branch?


Clarence Decatur Howe: All the resources of the government will be available to the commission. At the moment there is a forest insect control board in operation. It happens to be in the Department of Reconstruction and Supply at the present time. It is doing splendid work in experimenting with pests to check insect devastation. The information of the board will be available to this commission. In fact the commission can, of course, call on all the resources of the federal government which may be required to enable it to carry out its work efficiently.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Acting Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of Bill No. 365, respecting certain national parks and to amend the National Parks Act.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain the bill?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, since this bill, if enacted, will divest the crown of areas of land in certain of the national parks, the title to which is at present in the crown, His Excellency the Governor General wasrinformed in respect thereto and has given his consent to the consideration of the bill.
Briefly, the purpose of this bill is:
(1)	To add to Fort Beausejour historic park two small parcels totalling a little more than four acres of historic ground.
(2)	To withdraw from Riding Mountain national park a marginal 640 acres of land which is being exchanged with the owner of a similar area of land well inside the park which is of greater value for park purposes and which will be included in the park by this legislation.
(3)	To add to Elk Island national park approximately twenty-four square miles of territory immediately south of the park which is required to protect the health and welfare of the buffalo herd.
(4)	To withdraw from Prince Albert national park 373 square miles of territory which is not suitable for park purposes and which is needed for a dominion-provincial fur conservation scheme which will benefit the Indians, half-breeds and other residents leading the hunting life.
(5)	To withdraw from Waterton lakes national park sixteen square miles of territory on the east end that is not suitable for national park development, but is actually required for grazing and timber by nearby settlers.
(6)	To abolish Nemiskam park near Foremost and Buffalo national park near Wain-wright as these areas are no longer required for park purposes.
(7)	To vest in the governor general in council the additional power to grant leases of lots in subdivisions for the purposes of residence during summer months only and to provide for extensions and changes in existing townsites and subdivisions.
(8)	To authorize agreements with any province in which a national park is situated

National Parks
extending to park residents social services which are supplied by that province to persons resident outside of the park.
The explanations given in the bill are, I believe, quite adequate. However, for the information of the committee, I should like to explain more fully some of the changes being made in regard to certain parks.
Hon. members will recall that at the 1941 session a bill was introduced to amend the boundaries of Prince Albert national park, and that bill was withdrawn because of the opposition raised at that time. The war was then in progress, and the matter was not of sufficient importance to engage too much of the time of the house.
Section 3 of the present bill now asks that the same areas be removed from the park and be declared to be no longer required for park purposes. I might say that this park was created in 1927 prior to the transfer of the resources and was originally known as the Sturgeon forest reserve. The area is 1,869 square miles. It is proposed to remove three areas containing approximately 376 square miles; the area remaining in the park being approximately 1,493 square miles.
Parcel No. 1 containing 340 square miles is located on the northeast side of the park and is unsuitable for park purposes. There are no lakes of outstanding value; the ground is very low and full of muskegs, and there is no fishing in any of the small lakes. Vertical aerial photographs of the area were taken in 1946, and later the area was cruised. The timber resources are very limited. The total amount of the merchantable coniferous saw timber is estimated at 1,577,500 feet board measure of white spruce located in six separate blocks, some of which are in insufficient quantities to make an economical operation feasible. The remainder of the area does not at present contain any timber of sawlog size, although there are small quantities of jack pine ties and poplar cordwood. Generally the area is unattractive. On the other hand, it surrounds the Montreal lake Indian reserve and is suitable for incorporation in the fur conservation programme that has beem agreed upon between the dominion and the province for northern Saskatchewan.
Mr. MacNICOL; Did the minister say "surrounds"?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. That is my information.
Mr. MacNICOL; It does not surround it.
Mr. HOWE; My officers say it surrounds it. Perhaps the hon. member can look it over.


John Thomas Hackett: He is going to have it corrected.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The provincial government has agreed that when the area is deleted, from the park it will be included in the scheme which will permit the Indians to have equal trapping rights with the native population under the conditions of the agreement.
I should add that this reason for removing the parcel did not exist when the matter was before the house some years ago. I do not wish to take up time to discuss the joint fur conservation programme except to say that it is hoped it will be of great benefit to the trapping Indians in Saskatchewan. The inclusion of this parcel will facilitate the plans being made in that section of the country.
Parcel No. 2 comprises approximately ten square miles and is located on the southeast corner of the park. It is of no particular value to the park and is required as an addition to the adjacent Little Red River Indian reserve 106A. It is an area which juts out from the main block and adds unnecessarily to the length of the park boundary. When the land is reverted to the province it will then be transferred to the dominion to be added to the Indian reserve.
Parcel No. 3 contains approximately twenty-six square miles. It is located in the southwest corner of the park and is of no value for park purposes. On the other hand, it is suitable for agriculture. Like parcel No. 2, it lengthens the boundaries of the park and thereby increases the cost of administration. Apart from a certain portion of the park highway, approximately five miles, running through it and the telephone lines, there are no other park improvements situated in it.
In reference to the abolition of Buffalo park at Wainwright, as most members are aware the buffalo herd at this park was disposed of in the years 1939 and 1940. A number of the healthy animals were transferred to Elk island and the remainder slaughtered. At the present time there are approximately 1,200 animals in good condition at Elk island park. An arrangement has been made with the province to increase the area of this park by adding approximately 23-6 square miles from the Cooking lake reserve immediately adjacent; this is being transferred to the dominion and is being incorporated in the park by section 2, paragraph (c) of this bill. With the added area, which is very suitable for pasture, there will be sufficient land to maintain the present number of animals and to ensure for all time the preservation of this species.
Privilege

Perhaps that gives a fair sample of the provisions of the bill, and we can take up the others, if hon. members are interested, as we reach the sections.
On motion of Mr. MacNicol the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, July 4, 1947