June 12, 1925

CON

Charles-Philippe Beaubien

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BEAUBIEN:

I am very glad that

this section is going to apply to fairs, that there is going to be some such provision. If it results in abuse the section can be amended in the future, but I am sure that the directors on the different fair boards will see to it that things are carried on properly.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Permalink
PRO

Harry Leader

Progressive

Mr. LEADER:

The previous speaker made the statement that "you cannot make angels by legislation." My opinion is that we can make people better by education. In reference to the suggestion of the hon. member ' for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) that it be left to the management of the fairs to decide whether the thing should be carried on or not, I think that is the practice now, and that we have proper supervision. The police and the directors of the fair board are careful to see that matters are carried on as they should be. I have gone around with them when they made their tour to see that there were no objectionable features in connection with any of these sideshows and midway entertainments. The police have the power, especially if the sentiment of the community is behind them, to eliminate any of these objectionable features in regard to our fairs. Perhaps in this connection I may be permitted to give an illustration. The pari-mutuel people of Winnipeg came to Portage la Prairie on one occasion when I was a member of the Fair board and they asked the permission of the board to operate the parimutuel at our local races. We have very good races at Portage la Prairie, but we do not have the pari-mutuel in operation or any gambling that I know of. We told the parimutuel people plainly that we would not allow them to put the system in operation. They threatened to take measures that would spoil our fair but we told them plainly to go to it. In any event we did not allow the pari-mutuel and in taking that action we knew the public sentiment was behind us; the people did not want the pari-mutuel there.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Permalink
PRO

Milton Neil Campbell

Progressive

Mr. CAMPBELL:

In regard to what the

hon. member (Mr. Leader) says I am quite aware that the making of regulations for the control of these entertainments is entirely in the hands of the Fair board. What I wanted to point out, however, was that some man operating the amusements or machines might do certain things that would not be known until the fair was over. They can go on somewhere else and carry this thing on, whereas in this particular case they have all the advantages accruing to the Fair board and the responsibility should be allocated to them. If the moral sensibilities of the people of the district were hurt in any way, they could deal with it. In this particular case it would be impossible to do that, because the man has gone and cannot be found. I am not very dogmatic about it. I only throw out the suggestion, and as a matter of fact I intend to offer no opposition to the section.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Permalink
PRO

George Arthur Brethen

Progressive

Mr. BRETHEN:

This section is in the

nature of class legislation. If this man with the punch board were operating outside the fair ground he would be taken in charge as a criminal, and I do not see why we should make a distinction because he is inside the fair ground.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Permalink
PRO
PRO

George Arthur Brethen

Progressive

Mr. BRETHEN:

To make my position

clear on this, I move that section 5 be struck out.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

George Newcombe Gordon (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The CHAIRMAN:

It strikes me this

amendment is not in order. This section is under consideration. The hon. member can vote against the adoption of the section if he wishes, but not to strike out the whole section.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Permalink
CON

William Alves Boys (Whip of the Conservative Party (1867-1942))

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BOYS:

If my hon. friend is against

this section all he has to do is to vote against it, and it is not necessary to move an amendment.

Section agreed to on division.

On section 8-Bailee not producing or delivering any article under lawful seizure by peace or public officer.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Permalink
PRO

Milton Neil Campbell

Progressive

Mr. CAMPBELL:

I understand the minister had this clause under discussion with some of the attorneys general of the provinces. Perhaps he could tell us what they had to say about it.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

This clause is drafted

by Mr. Newcombe, formerly Deputy Minister of Justice, at present Mr. Justice Newcombe, upon the suggestion of the members of the bar of Alberta, and I really think it is a

Criminal Code

commendable provision, making it a criminal offence for any one who has been appointed by the sheriff as bailee of anything capable of being stolen, to appropriate the article to his own use personally, or selling or disposing of it, or not returning it at the appointed time when ordered by the court. It has been suggested that such a provision was needed. I told my hon. friends from the west the other day that I proposed the amendment just to fill a need out west, but that if they did not want it I am not going to force it upon them.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Permalink
PRO

Milton Neil Campbell

Progressive

Mr. CAMPBELL:

I am not opposing this provision, nor do I understand that the hon. members for Bow River (Mr. Garland) and Battle River (Mr. Spencer) were opposing it the other day, they were simply looking for information. The point I am not clear upon is as to what the position was previous to this law. If any person were left in possession of certain goods and appropriated those goods to his own use, was he not guilty of theft under the common law?

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

The trouble was that

it was difficult to prosecute on a .mere charge of theft. This has been attempted in some instances, and sufficient evidence could not be secured to convict the guilty party. Of course this will not work against an individual, and if there is anything to justify his having left the property and gone away, he cannot be convicted. The bailee in most instances i3 the owner of the property and the sheriff perhaps cannot find any other person except the debtor to act as bailee. If that ddbtor uses the property left on his hands by the court for his personal advantage, sells it or gives it away, surely it is equivalent to theft and he should be convicted for disposing of it.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Permalink
PRO

Arthur John Lewis

Progressive

Mr. LEWIS:

Suppose for instance there

is said to be 2,000 bushels of wheat threshed into a granary, and the bailee is in charge of it. Some time after that he is asked to produce that wheat, and when it is taken to the elevator it is found that -there are only 1,800 bushels. It may be due to short weight of the threshing machine. Will he be called upon to prove that there were only 1,800 bushels there, or will he be protected if he produces all the wheat that was stored there at the time?

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

The last three lines of

the section protect him. They read: '

A person accused under this section shall not be convicted if it be proved that the non-production and nondelivery of the thing bailed is not due to any wilful act or omission on- the part of the person accused.

He could not be convicted in the case suggested if the non-delivery is nut due to any act or omission on his part.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Permalink
PRO
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

The same thing happens in the criminal code. A man who is accused of receiving stolen property found in his possession has to show that there has been no wilful act on his part which makes him liable.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Permalink
IND

William Charles Good

Independent Progressive

Mr. GOOD:

It was urged the other day

by some hon. members who are not here just now that this clause placed on the man who was charged the onus of proving he was not guilty. Has the minister given full consideration to that?

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

I do not think it can

be done otherwise. I think it is identical with the case of receiving stolen goods.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Permalink

Item agreed to. On section 11-Use of word "Royal" without authority.


LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Some of my hon. friends in the committee the other day took exception to this section. The necessity or advisability of this section has been shown in many instances in recent years. Associations were assuming to use that word, and it leads in many cases to serious difficulty. Only a couple of years ago there was an institution in Toronto called the Royal College of Science,' and other scientific associations there, especially the college of ophthalmology, took strong objection to it and wrote many letters to His Excellency the Governor General and to the government about it. In other cases I may say that even swindlers have used the word "royal" and have associated it with the rest of their name in order to deceive the people, and it is certainly not paying the care and attention which ought to be paid to this word, so long as we have the respect for it which we have in this country. It was stated that there was nothing of the kind in England. Well, the use of the words "royal" and "imperial" is forbidden in England save with the consent of the Home Office. It is so enacted in many statutes of the United Kingdom. In this country important associations are using that name, but are following the practice of asking leave to do it, and there is no objection to that. What is objectionable is that this name should be used indiscriminately for all sorts of purposes by all sorts of firms and associations without asking leave to- do it. Unless this is made an

Criminal Code

offence, there is no possibility whatever of dealing with a matter of this kind.

This cannot work any injury to anybody, because those who want to use it and who are entitled to use it, will be given leave to do so. I really think, out of respect for the word "royal," we should not allow it to be misused as it is to-day. Only a couple of years ago we prevented, I think by legislation,, the use of the term "red cross" except by the Red Cross Society. Soane firms had begun to use the term in order to benefit by the popularity of the name in the selling of their goods. The practice here, for instance, is always to refuse to a Dominion company the use of a provincial word. We would not incorporate here any company with the use of the word "Ontario" or "Quebec." On the other hand, Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces do not use the word "Dominion" or "Canadian" in giving charters to any corporation, firm or association. I think those names should be left untouched except by the usual leave.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Permalink

June 12, 1925