Mr. McKENZIE:

The old section is continued with this added. Is that what the minister means?

Mr. DOHERTY:

Yes, with the addition of foster parent or step-parent. The guardian is already in subsection (a).

Mr. PUGSLEY:

What is the present section?

Mr. DOHERTY:

The present section contains -a provision just as it is here, save as regards the proviso that a man is not to l>

j convicted if the period for which he failed tc keep his books is more than five years anterior to the charge. The present section has been interpreted as providing that if at any time within the last five years he kept any books, he could not be convicted. What was in view under the old section, though it was unfortunately expressed, was that if

he had at any time during the last five years failed to keep such 'books of account he might be convicted. In view of the wording, it was interpreted to mean that only if, as as a matter of fact, for the whole period of five years he kept no books he might be convicted. The proviso here carries out the intention that he is not to be convicted if his offence of not keeping books is more than five years old.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

Speaking generally, what is the percentage of increase?

Mr. DOHERTY:

I could not give the exact percentage but it is not very large.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

I suppose from ten cents per mile to thirteen cents per mile.

Mr. DOHERTY:

The increases are not .very large. This proposed tariff has been submitted to the different provincial authorities who are also interested in the question. There has been a suggestion, of some question whether we ought to deal with the tariff of the constables. Whatever there may be in it, the present Criminal Code deals with the tariff, and there has been no serious objection taken.

Mr. McKENZIE:

What is the purpose of section 8.

Mr. DOHERTY:

That is not an unusual section in regard to modifications made to criminal law, because a person should not find himself convicted possibly of a crime rsawly created until there has been ample opportunity for his being aware of the existence of the law.

Mr. McKENZIE:

Do I understand the

minister to say that there shall be a uniformity of constables' fees, that is, the provincial governments will enact or amend their scale of fees so as to have uniformity throughout the Dominion?

Mr. DOHERTY:

Whether we are really the constitutional authority to fix the tariff ct not it has been the practice in the past under our law to fix the tariff for the services of constables in connection with criminal proceedings. It may perhaps be open to the question that being part of the administration of justice it would be more proper that the province should do it. As a matter of fact one of the provinces to which we submitted these changes did suggest that view. The tariff as established by the present Criminal Code has been accepted and acted upon, and the constables

have made representations to us, and the provincial authorities in some portions of the country at all events-Ontario notably-* have acquiesced in the representation that the fees paid those constables for services in connection with criminal matters were inadequate. The fees, of course, are not paid by the Dominion. In many cases they are paid by the parties. I think a glance at the fees will show they are not unduly large.

Bill reported, read a third time, and passed.

On motion of Hon. Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 12.25 a.m. (Tuesday).

Tuesday, August 14, 1917.