1933-04-03

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-oouata) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, Le
Journal of Quebec, on March 31, 1933, published the following article:
Mr. Bennett disapproves of all attacks on priests.
The extreme liberalism of Mr. Pouliot does not meet with the approval of the Prime Minister-a typical incident.
Ottawa, March 31.- (From the correspondent of Le Journal).

Mr. Bennett does not intend to allow Catholic priests to be attacked with impunity in the house. Mr. J. F. Pouliot, Liberal member for Temiscouata, was made aware of this fact at Monday's sitting, March 20.
Mr. Pouliot -was criticizing, unreservedly, colonization in Quebec. He was speaking French and was unaware that the Prime Minister, Mr. Bennett was closely following his remarks.
In his attack against the Rev. Mr. G. M. Bilodeau, missionary agent of colonization, Mr. Pouliot went so far as to state: "I sent him something small so that it would be on a level with him."

Mr. Bennett who until then had been following Mr. Pouliot's remarks, without interrupting him, could not help interjecting:	"That is
Liberalism at its best."	_
It is the first time, we think, that a Catholic member has thus attacked a priest, in the house. Therefore the hon. Mr. Bennett who was able to follow the whole of Mr. Pouliot's French speech . . .
Mr. SPEAKER:: I must ask the hon. member to cease reading a long article. If he has a point to make let him state it to the house.


Mr. POULIOT:: There are two or three
more lines, and it must be quoted in full. I do not wish to impose on the house but it is essential that I read all that is said.
(Translation):
Therefore the hon. Mr. Bennett who was able to follow the whole of Mr. Pouliot's French speech did not miss the opportunity of pointing out to him that by thus attacking priests he was acting as a true Liberal.
Then follows a Hansard quotation.
And Mr. Pouliot, after this rebuff, continued his speech on a more respectful tone.
I have written whait I have to say because I do not wish to overstep the limit.
If the correspondent of Le Journal had been fairminded enough not to detach an excerpt of Hansard of March 20, and separate it from the context, giving iit a wrong meaning, the subscribers to that newspaper would have seen that I established an essential and very clear distinction, often repeated, between missionaries, properly speaking, and employees, and, it is simply of the employee to whom reference is made.
God forbid that anybody should attack, in the house, the sacred character of the priest . . .


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just a sentence or two.
God forbid...


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the open defiance of the chair by the hon. gentleman it seems to me is something that should not be tolerated by this chamber. He was called to order, he said he had a few more lines to read, he has been reading several paragraphs, he is now called to order again and he repeats it. I thought it was a well understood rule in this house that articles in newspapers were not to be read unless they reflected on the conduct of the member in respect to particular legislation.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I followed it.

Radio-Judge Rutherford


Jean-François Pouliot: I have been dirtily
attacked. Would I have no right of defence?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understood the hon. member to take exception to an article in regard to his own action in the house. But having done that, he is now reading his own explanation. I ask him to make it as brief as possible.


Jean-François Pouliot: (Translation): God forbid that anybody should attack, in the house, the sacred character of the priest; should unfortunately the thing happen, I shall be the first to espouse his cause, as I have already proven it.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Mr. GORDON:: I desire to lay upon the table of the house orders in council passed pursuant to the relief legislation.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Richard Bedford Bennett: That the name of Mr. Young be substituted for that of Mr. Butcher on the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and that the name of Mr. Butcher be substituted for that of Mr. Young on the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	,

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: I would
like to direct a question to the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). Last session I placed a question on the order paper with regard to the report of the commission investigating the possibilities of the Chignecto canal. I should like to ask the minister if this report has been received and whether it will be.tabled during this session.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The report has not been received.



TRAWLER LICENCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: On Friday last my
hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) asked whether I was prepared to make an announcement of the government policy
with regard to the licensing of steam trawlers for the coming fiscal year, and my answer was that I hoped to be in a position to make a statement to-day. That statement was prepared, but at the last minute new facts came to the attention of the government with respect to existing contracts which the trawler companies must fill for the supply of fish during the lenten season, so I must postpone my statement until to-morrow.



JUDGE RUTHERFORD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED 'DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):	On Friday last the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) asked a question with regard to the measure of responsibility the government must assume in connection with the ruling of the radio broadcasting commission concerning Judge Rutherford's speeches. I have received a statement from the radio commission in this connection which reads as follows:
Many complaints were received by the radio broadcasting commission regarding the abusive and mischievous character of the speeches of Judge Rutherford being broadcast in Canada, but the commission took no action until it had. obtained a copy of advertising literature issued by Rutherford's organization in Canada, The Watch Tower, 40 Irwin Avenue, Toronto, containing quotations from these speeches. With this evidence before it the commission, on January 18th, instructed Canadian broadcasting stations that the Rutherford speeches must not be broadcast until the continuity of records of the same had been submitted to the commission for approval. The commission learned that the Rutherford broadcasts were in the form of gramophone records manufactured in the United States, and that time for their use on the air had been purchased from twenty-five Canadian stations by the organization representing Rutherford in Canada. As Rutherford lived in the United States and did not deliver his speeches in person in Canada he could not be made amenable to Canadian laws, and the only control that could be exercised in this country was in regard to the broadcasting of his gramophone records.
Anxious that it should be clear there was no intention of interfering with the legitimate exercise of free speech the commission requested the representative of the International Bible Students, the organization sponsoring Rutherford in Canada, to submit the records of the Rutherford speeches, together with the texts on which they were based. This request was not complied with, and the only response was the wide distribution of printed literature in Canada attacking the commission and religious institutions and clergy, in which the chairman of the commission was described as liar, theif, Judas and polecat, and therefore fit to associate only with the clergy.
In order not to interfere with the legitimate operations of the International Bible Students the commission authorized the broadcasting
[Stage Direction]
Sarnia-Port Huron Tunnel
stations to allow that organization to substitute its own speakers in Canada for the gramophone records of Rutherford's speeches.
Letters have been received by the commission from clergy of tile majority of religious denominations in Canada commending its course in the Rutherford matter. Owing to popular indignation in the United States at the nature of his speeches, Rutherford has been denied the use of the great networks of the large broadcasting organizations in that country.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the measure of responsibility assumed by the government in this matter, parliament gave full authority and responsibility to the radio broadcasting commission. I would refer my hon. friend to the bill adopted last session, which is chapter 51 of the statutes of 1932.
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: I thank the
minister for this statement; I think it will go a long way in giving the people of Canada a better understanding of the actual situation.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROSS W. GRAY (West Lambton): I would like to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) whether or not the special committee on railways and shipping will sit this session.
Robert James Manion: I have not given the
matter very serious consideration up to the moment, but I think the special committee will have to sit to deal with the estimates of the Canadian National Railways. The point I made some time ago was that in all probability, since we are carrying out the recommendations contained in the Duff report, we would not call the officers of the railway before that committee but that we might call some of the directors instead. That was the recommendation of the commission. I think the committee will sit in the near future.



SARNIA-PORT HURON VEHICULAR TUNNEL COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 31, consideration of Bill No. 41, to incorporate the Sarnia-Port Huron Vehicular Tunnel Company-Mr. Gray'-Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
On section 2-Declaratory.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the government has some responsibility with regard to all legislation introduced and passed in the house. I am having a report prepared with respect to this bill, and until that report is completed I think the bill should stand.
I wonder if the members of the committee have looked at the bill; I wonder if they

have examined it and really understand what it means. If the congress of the United States approves, this bill can become operative. Perhaps this is out of order, the principle of the bill having been dealt with on the second reading, but the congress of the United States must approve before it becomes operative. The sum of $25,000 is to be lodged with the government. There are no par value shares. The shares may be issued for such compensation as the directors by bylaw may fix, and they are authorized to issue bonds for $5,000,000.
We have already had one experience in Canada with respect to bonds issued by one such venture, and we know with what sad result to the investors. Having any responsibility at all for the investing public, I cannot observe the passage of a bill such as this without taking some steps to afford some protection to those who may be induced to put their money into the venture, and under the circumstances, until I obtain a report from the law officers, I would ask that further consideration of the bill be deferred, rather than move that the committee rise. I merely move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. GRAY:: While I am agreeable to what the Prime Minister has said, to let the bill stand, can he give me any definite time as to when it can come up again-to-morrow night when private bills are under consideration?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This bill is of such far-reaching consequences, and its provision's are so extraordinary when applied to present day conditions, in view of what we know has happened in connection with two ventures incorporated by this parliament, that I should not think those who are preparing the report in the department will have completed their work by to-morrow night. On Friday night, however, there is no reason why it should not be considered. Both the Department of Justice and the Department of External Affairs will consider the bill in view of its international character and the fact that the construction of the works authorized is entirely dependent upon action that may be taken by congress. That is the purely external side of the matter, buit the financial side is quite serious. The construction of the works does not depend merely upon action that may be taken by this parliament; it may depend upon action taken by the congress of the United States. By section 14:

Questions
The company shall not commence the actual construction of the said subways or tunnels until permitted by the congress of the United States of America. . . .
It is rather odd that the commencement of a tunnel on Canadian territory should be made subject to the permission of the congress of the United States.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I will speak of that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: However, that is a matter to be dealt with by the Department of External Affairs. The legal phase of the bill and the financial structure will be dealt with by other departments, and by Friday next, when private bills are reached, I am quite certain that the report will be completed.
Progress reported.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. GIROUARD:: What was the amount of call loans and commercial loans made outside of' Canada by the chartered banks of Canada in 1932?


Mr. RHODES:: The monthly return of the chartered banks as of December 31, 1932, gives the following totals of loans and deposits outside of Canada: call and short (not exceeding thirty days) loans elsewhere than in Canada on stocks, debentures, bonds, and other securities of a sufficient marketable value to cover, $91,491,603; other 'Current loans and discounts elsewhere than in Canada after making full provision for bad and doubtful debts, $151,661,262; deposits elsewhere than in Canada, $328,725,094.


SMELT FISHING
Mr. MARGIL:: 1.	Did the Department of Fisheries receive a complaint about the alleged illegal smelt fishing on the Quebec side of the Restigouehe river in 1933?
2.	If so, who made the complaint and what were the allegations?
3.	Did the Department of Fisheries send a telegram to J. E. Johnson, fishery officer at Campbellton, New Brunswick, instructing him to stop Quebec fishermen from shipping smelts from New Brunswick points, unless they had a permit from the fishery officer in Quebec?


Alfred Duranleau: 1 and 2. The department was informed by W. S. Montgomery, of Dalhousie, N.B., that it was reported that 'there was an extension of the season on the Quebec side and that the fish were being marketed through Campbellton.
3.	A telegram was sent to Inspector J. E. Fournier, of Gampbellton, informing him of the above and instructing him to see that no illegal fish were disposed of in his district.


WAR PENSION EXPENDITURE
Mr. SPEARMAN:: By what sum would our war pension expenditure have been reduced for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1932, had all war disability pensions been paid at the same rating as that applied in the case of privates, non-commissioned officers, warrant officers and lieutenants?


Mr. MacLAREN:: Estimated amount $125,000.


CIVIL SERVICE PERMANENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. MacLEAN:: 1.	How many persons permanently employed in the civil service of Canada are sixty-five years of age and over?
2.	What	was	the	total	salary	of	such
employees for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1933?
3.	How many of said employees are paying into any one of the several superannuation funds?
4.	How many pay into the retirement fund?
5.	How many permanent civil servants are sixty years of age but not over sixty-five?
6.	What	was	the	total	salary	of	said
employees for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1933?
7.	How many between the ages of sixty and sixty-five are paying into any one of the several superannuation funds?
8.	How many pay into the retirement fund?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will require months to prepare the answer to this question. I cannot think that the hon. gentleman realizes the full significance of checking over the age of every employee of the Dominion of Canada. It is a question that will involve the services of many people for months. If if, is a matter of aiding unemployment that the hon. gentleman has in mind, it may accomplish something, but the question should stand for the moment until he has had an opportunity of looking into it further.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I thought that these
tables were all on hand in the department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, they are not all on hand in the department.
Question stands.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	How many private railway ears are there for the use of ministers?
2.	What is the cost of each such car?

Questions as Orders for Returns


Mr. DORION:: 1.	How many private railway cars were available for the use of federal ministers, as at July 30, 1930?
2.	What was the public expenditure respecting each such car, for the twelve months ending July 30, 1930?



GOVERNMENT TELEPHONE SERVICE

Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: What was the cost of the telephone service in the various departments of the government at Ottawa during each of the years 1928-1929, 1929-1930, 1930-1931, and 1931-1932?



DESCHAILLONS, QUEBEC, SEMAPHORE

Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Has the semaphore at Desehaillons been removed; if so, when, at whose request, and why ?
2.	Has the signal station at Desehaillons been changed; if so, to where?
3.	What is the size of the former site and that of the new one?
4.	From whom was the new site purchased; what were the conditions of the transaction, and what was the price paid?
5.	Have any complaints been received regarding the new station?
6.	Has anyone requested the reconstruction of the semaphore?



HALIFAX, N.S., EASTERN DIVISION OF FISHERIES

Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	How many persons were employed in the office of the eastern division of fisheries at Halifax as during the year 1932?
2.	What are their names?
3.	What were the duties of each of said employees ?
4.	What salary was paid to each?
5.	Were they all appointed by the Civil Service Commission?
6.	If not, on whose recommendation were they appointed?
7.	How many were employed in the said office for the month ending February 28, 1933?
S. What was the total cost of maintaining the said office for the years 1932 and 1933 (a) for salaries; (b) for rent; (c) for travelling expenses; (d) for all other purposes?
9.	Does the government intend to maintain this office after March 31, 1933; if so, for how long?
10.	Does the government intend to reduce the staff of this office during the coming fiscal year ?
Return tabled forthwith.



VANCOUVER, B.C., WESTERN DIVISION OF FISHERIES

Mr. NEILL:: 1.	How many persons were employed in the office of the western division of fisheries at Vancouver during the fiscal year ending March 31. 1932?
2.	What are their names?
3.	What were the duties of each of said employees?

4.	What salary was paid to each?
5.	Were they all appointed by the Civil Service Commission?
6.	If not, on whose recommendation were they appointed?
7.	How many were employed in the said office for the month ending February 28, 1933?
8.	What was the total cost of maintaining
the said office for the fiscal year ending March 31,	]932	(a)	for	salaries;	(b)	rent;	(c)
travelling expenses; (d) all other purposes, and showing total for the year?
9.	What was the total cost of maintaining
the said office for the fiscal year ending March 31,	1933	(a)	for	salaries;	(b)	rent;	(c)
travelling expenses; (d) all other purposes, and showing total for the year?
10.	Does the government intend to maintain this office after March 31, 1933?
11.	Does the government intend to reduce the staff of this office during the coming fiscal year ?
Return tabled forthwith.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Wilfrid Girouard: For a copy of all letters, correspondence and other documents in the possession of the government since August, 1930, respecting the construction of a breakwater at Roberval, province of Quebec.



RADIO COMMISSION-MR. E. C. BUCHANAN

Ross Wilfred Gray: For a copy of all correspondence, documents, orders in council and certificates of the Civil Service Commission, respecting the appointment of Mr. E. C. Buchanan to the position of director of public relations to the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND POTATO INSPECTOR

Alfred Edgar MacLean: For a full copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, received from any party or parties, since 1930, together with a full copy of the evidence taken at the investigation regarding the dismissal of Harry W. Francis, of Albany, Prince Edward Island, as potato inspector.



DESCHAILLONS, QUE., SIGNAL STATION

Mr. VERVILLE:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of Marine, Mr. Ulderic Paris and any other person, concerning the exchange of the land for the signal station at Desehaillons; also a copy of the contracts between the parties.



DESCHAILLONS, QUE.-DREDGING

Joseph-Achille Verville: For a copy of the reports furnished by the persons who inspected the dredging work done at Desehaillons during the months of August and September, 1932.

Motions for Papers



PUBLIC WORKS PAY LISTS

Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of Department of Public Works
pay lists respecting works carried out by the said department at Grande Entree, Magdalen islands, since August 1, 1930.



PETITE RIVIERE AU RENARD PUBLIC WORKS

Maurice Brasset: For a copy of the paylists respecting works carried out by the Department of Public Works at Petite Riviere au Renard, from August 1, 1930, to date.



PROPOSED STABILIZATION FUND

Mr. MOTHERWELL:: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, telegrams and other documents received by the government or any officers thereof, with respect to the establishment of the stabilization fund announced by the Minister of Finance in his recent budget.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If this motion were taken literally it would involve a tremendous amount of work; it would involve the conning of correspondence in the office of every minister of the crown. Has the hon. member in mind a request for every letter, telegram and communication received and being received from day to day?


William Richard Motherwell: I will indicate what I have in mind and if my present motion is not proper, I shall be glad to amend it. My motion reads:
For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, telegrams and other documents received by the government or any officers thereof, with respect to the establishment of the stabilization fund announced by the Minister of Finance in his recent budget.
This would be correspondence received prior to the establishment of the fund, and I would amend my motion by adding after the word *"received" the words "prior to Tuesday, March 21, 1933." I could either drop my motion and redraft it or the government [DOT]could accept my interpretation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It would be agreeable if the motion woTe amended as suggested by my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure my hon. friend realizes that the difficulty is that since September, 1931, every minister has been receiving correspondence with respect to the effect upon business of a depreciated exchange. This action is the result of the accumulative effect of all that correspondence. In my office alone there must be thousands of letters and it would be most difficult to trace them. If the correspondence being asked for is that re-53719-230
lating to the fund as such, then there could be no objection.


William Richard Motherwell: I want to be accommodating and not cause unnecessary work and perhaps the better way would be to withdraw my motion.
Motion withdrawn.



TIMOTHY SEED-VALUATION FOR DUTY

Maurice Brasset: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, telegrams, and other documents in possession of the government with reference to order in council (P.C. 420) passed under section 43 of the Customs Act, in which the value for duty purposes of Timothy seed was fixed at a minimum value of 6 cents per pound in Canadian funds, together with a copy of said order in council and all rules and regulations and instructions issued thereunder and the correspondence if any received by the government since the adoption of the said order in council.
Mr. RYCIvMAN: There is no objection to this motion if it is accepted with the usual reservation as to confidential correspondence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. NEILL:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, orders in council and other documents exchanged between any member of the government, or departmental official, and any other individual, corporation or association, since September 1, 1930, relating to the following subjects:	(a)
duty on fuel oil imported into Canada; (b) bonus, subsidy or subvention on the production of coal from the coal mines of Vancouver island, British Columbia; (c) importation of British coal into British Columbia, and steps to deal with the situation thereby created; (d) proposed sale or leasing of the Canadian National railway docks at Vancouver.
Mr. RYCIvMAN: So far as this motion relates to the Department of National Revenue, there is no objection provided it is accepted with the usual reservation as to confidential correspondence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would direct attention to the fact that a compliance literally with this motion would impose upon the clerical staffs responsible for the production of documents a burden which cannot be over-stated in words. It would necessitate the searching of the files in all departments for the purpose of obtaining letters relating to the duty on fuel oil imported into Canada, the prevention of British coal coming into British Columbia, and other matters. This would impose an almost intolerable burden upon the staffs and the return could not be completed for weeks or months.

Easter Recess


Alan Webster Neill: Perhaps fihe first part of the motion could be amended by substituting the words "British Columbia" for the word "Canada." That would narrow down immensely that part of the motion. It will be noted that the other questions are limited to British Columbia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The work will be the
same.


Alan Webster Neill: I move that the word
"Canada" in the fifth line be struck out and the words "British Columbia" substituted therefor.
Motion as amended agreed to.



EASTER RECESS

Richard Bedford Bennett: That when this house adjourns on Thursday, the 13th of April, it stand adjourned until Tuesday, the 18th of April, 1933.
He said: I may say that in preparing this motion the government was acting upon the apparent general approval of the house which was voiced the other day. The government has no hard and fast idea in proposing this motion and I should 'be glad to have any suggestions the house desires to make as to whether- or not these dates should be adhered to.


Mr. MARCIL:: Quite often the house has adjourned at six o'clock on Wednesday evening in holy week.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I made inquiries with
respect to that and I was told that Thursday was a day upon which we might work, that it was not a day of obligation. I am entirely in the hands of the house with respect to the matter.


Charles Marcil: It is not a day of obligation.


Mr. DUFF:: I would not mind if the
house sat on Sunday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 58, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I find that I was in error in making a statement during the discussion of the resolution upon which this bill was founded. This statement was in

connection with the estimates for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and after going over the matter with the commissioner of the force I find that while the item on page 49 of the estimates of $5,615,595.75 represents as far as it is possible to estimate what will be actually expended upon the force during the current year, there is a clause in the bill which provides that the payments made into the 'consolidated revenue fund by the provinces may be utilized from time to time by the police force as they may be required. This is intended more as an emergency provision than otherwise. Last year the vote fell short of meeting the needs of the force because of the fact that some three hundred additional recruits had to be taken on last autumn. Consequently, in the supplementary estimates we asked for an allowance of the money which had been paid into the consolidated revenue fund by the provinces, and this was granted. The explanatory note to section 1 reads:
The purpose of the amendment is to empower the governor in council, in case of emergency or other special circumstances, to authorize the utilization of the moneys in question for the use of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
It is hoped that the vote asked for in the present estimates will be sufficient for all purposes, but without desiring to be an alarmist, I must inform the house that in the opinion of the commissioner, the situation existing at the moment in various parts of Canada with regard to communistic activities is not at all satisfactory. These activities have not been lessened during recent months. I regret to say that we have information that the communist party in all its ramifications in various parts of Canada is perhaps more active and dangerous to-day than it has been at any time in recent years. Developments have taken place in the far west on the Pacific coast, throughout the prairie provinces, in Ontario, and very recently in Quebec, which may call for some further increase in the force in case anything like an actual outbreak occurs. As I say, I do not wish to be an alarmist in regard to such matters, but it is always well to be prepared and the officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have informed me that they have made certain preparations to deal with situations that may arise. It is true that in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force can act only when its services are requested by the municipal police or by the authorities of a province, but it is at all times in the closest cooperation with the municipal and provincial police forces and ready to offer its services should they be required. Should an increase become necessary

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
on account of any conditions which may arise in any part of Canada during the next twelve months, there would not be enough money in the present vote to meet any emergent situation. It is for that reason power is asked in clause one of this bill to give to his excellency the governor in council authority to advance such sums as may be necessary out of the moneys paid for police services by the six provinces which have entered into agreements with the Dominion government.
Ernest Lapointe: Will the money be in
the consolidated revenue fund?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The money when paid by the provinces goes into the consolidated revenue fund. The commissioner is still hopeful and I am hopeful too that it will not be necessary to ask for further grants, but we cannot tell from week to week or perhaps from day to day what may arise. Threats of a very serious nature come to us. To-day some very serious ones came to hand and it might become necessary to increase the force temporarily. For that reason this special power is asked to utilize moneys that come into the treasury in payment of the services of the mounted police in the six provinces.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has just said might have a little more force were it not for the faot that only a few days ago the government obtained from this house authority, under a clause relating to peace, order and good government, to take any measures that they deemed necessary, and were provided with all the funds required by having voted a blank cheque from which they could draw for that purpose. Surely there must be some place at which the line is to be drawn. As long as under existing legislation the government has power sufficient to enable it to get additional moneys to meet any situation at a time when there may be reason for action of the kind, we certainly, if that power exists, should not grant in reference to this particular force, further power that will extend for all time. The minister might well at all events, so far as this year is concerned, so long as the government has the general powers to which I have referred, refrain from asking parliament to give it further power for meeting emergent conditions.
May I also say to the Minister of Justice that it is really important a:t times like this that we should have before us as complete a statement as is possible of the expenses of a force like the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which is a semi-military force, and 53719-2301
that those expenses should be provided for in exactly the same manner as is the case with all other expenses of the services of Canada. The government can ask for whatever sums it feels are necessary and that amount can 'be voted out of the consolidated revenue fund in the regular way. I do not think any exception will be taken to the amount the government may regard as necessary to meet conditions as they exist, but it would be a misfortune if, in addition to what is voted by parliament for the mounted police in the regular way, there should be in concealment somewhere, because that is what it will be, an additional fund which the police themselves, without any prior knowledge on the part of parliament, can draw upon for purposes they may deem neoessary. As the minister has just said, the moneys from the provinces go into the consolidated revenue fund in any case and it is out of this fund that parliament gives the government authority to draw whatever sum is necessary. Therefore, unless there is some desire to conceal part of the expenditure of the force, I cannot see 'that this part of 'the bill is needed at all. I must say I was glad that the minister mentioned at the outset that he was mistaken last week, because at that time even he, when we were discussing this matter, expressed surprise at the representation that these moneys were desired as being in addition to sums which would 'already have been voted by parliament under the specific appropriation for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. For this year at all events and, indeed, for all time, we ought to avoid this method of procedure which is a departure from the general principle of (appropriating public moneys and of giving parliament the control which should be exercised by it over such expenditures. The course proposed will cause confusion in appropriations, 'and it will be a handicap in auditing. Certainly in regard to any force that is in the nature of a quasi-military one, [DOT]there is a double reason why parliamentary control should 'be as complete and authoritative as possible.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support what my leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) has just said. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has given as a justification for this part of the bill the statement that there is an emergency.


Hugh Guthrie: No; that there may be.


Ernest Lapointe: Why should we have permanent legislation to deal with what is an abnormal situation while the government has already all the power necessary to deal with

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
that emergency? The emergency will disappear, as we all hope, and then there will be left on the statute books this permanent legislation which is absolutely not in conformity with the usual rules of parliamentary procedure.
Mr.ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) mentioned conditions in certain parts of the dominion as a reason for giving the government the power necessary to deal with the situation. During the last three yearn we have been pointing out to the house that these conditions would arise and suggesting that something should be done to meet them. I am convinced that we cannot meet this situation simply by increasing the military or police force of the country. A few days ago, in connection with the Unemployment and Farm Relief Bill, the direct relief, which is the only way in which the government intends to deal with that situation, was limited to a certain sum. Now we have a bill giving the government unlimited powers in regard to repressive measures that may be taken in meeting any situation that may arise on account of the difficulties in which the people find themselves. The house should insist that the government take some other means of dealing with economic conditions in this country than by increasing the military and police forces. This is no way to handle the situation which is confronting us and, if we continue it, the result will be disaster.


Sir EUGENE FISET (Rimouski):: Over
and above what my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) have said, I wonder if the minister has given any thought to the fact that this legislation is creating a precedent for all departments because it is of a permanent nature. I well remember that in days past numerous deputations were received by deputy ministers and ministers of the crown trying to persuade the government to allow different departments to take out of consolidated revenue fund whatever moneys might have been credited by that department to the credit of the receiver general. Here we are creating a precedent for which I think there is no real reason. I think the minister and the government have sufficient power now under the relief bill to do all that they intend to do for the present year by this act, and I think that the minister and the government should pause before giving such extraordinary power to one department in a situation which is of a temporary character.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, on division, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Cowan (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay) in the chair.
On section 1-Arrangements with local governments for the use of the force.
Hugh Guthrie: I have listened with great interest to the criticism offered by my right hon. friend and the member for Quebec East in regard to this section. When this bill was drafted, the peace, order and good government clause in the relief bill had not been proposed to the house. Now that it has been drawn to my attention that that clause does exist in the relief bill which has now been passed, I think perhaps that does obviate the necessity for this particular clause being put in this bill. The objection that this would be a permanent clause I think is a substantial one, but I should like clause 1 to stand for a short time until I have had an opportunity of consulting with one or two of my friends. My present view, however, is that under the circumstances it might be dropped.
Section 1 stands.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Punishment of offences by non-commissioned officers and constables.


Hugh Guthrie: The former law by subsection 2 of section 31 provided for the reduction in rank of a non-commissioned officer who had been guilty of some offence, but it did not apply to constables. I am informed that we have three grades of constables, grade A, B and C, and the commissioner desires to make this clause apply to constables so that if a constable of grade A, for instance, has been found guilty of some offence he may be reduced. As the law now stands he could not be reduced. That is the only change.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Time served in South Africa may be included.
Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: If the government should find it necessary to increase the force, is there any body of men from which additional members could be recruited?


Hugh Guthrie: The officers are not recruited; they are promoted after they have been trained in the service. The recruiting of the force is done in the various district headquarters on application of the individual concerned to the officer in command at the nearest headquarters. The applicant is there examined, the examination being a severe

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
one, and if the applicant proves suitable he is accepted for a period of training, the training taking place at Regina.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: What is the age limit?


Hugh Guthrie: From 22 up to 28 years of age.


Robert McKenzie: Suppose a few hundred more men were required at a moment's notice, how would they be recruited?


Hugh Guthrie: We have at the present time a very long list of accepted applicants, some three or four hundred, and the recruits would be taken in the first instance from those already accepted.


Charles Marcil: I think it is only right that I should call to the minister's attention that in my view the constables on duty in the province of Quebec should be bilingual. Some of them operate in purely French districts, and it would be advisable to have them speak both languages.


Hugh Guthrie: Some time ago I submitted a list which appears on Hansard of the members of the force who are stationed in Quebec, and with one or two exceptions they are all French-Canadians. If they are not French-Canadians they are bilingual.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Suppose you wanted a certain number of men in a particular province; would the applications from that particular province receive the preference?


Hugh Guthrie: It would depend on how quickly we wanted the men. We would take them from the nearest point I would assume, but in every province and district there is a long waiting list so it would not be very difficult to secure men.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Subsection 7 of section 6 provides that time served in South Africa [DOT]may be included. Does that refer to both active and non-active members of the force, or only to the active members?


Hugh Guthrie: Just to the active members. I am told it applies to only a very few men.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: It rules out those who served in South Africa and who are not now members of the force?


Hugh Guthrie: Those who have retired on pension and are already out of the force would be ruled out.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Time served in South Africa may be included.
Mr. HEAPS:: What is the total number of the members of the force at the present time?


Hugh Guthrie: I can give the figures as of the first of October last, and I do not think it has varied much since then. On the first of October last the number was 2,348, which includes the preventive service.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What number of preventive service men?


Hugh Guthrie: The number of the preventive service men that we took over at the time of the amalgamation was 350. I think the number has increased a little since then.


Mr. EULER:: Are they maintained as a
distinct body, that is distinct from the rest of the mounted police?


Hugh Guthrie: They are members of
the police force, in every way subject to the discipline of the force, but they are employed on that preventive service work to a very large extent. Some have been, transferred to other places, but I think ninety per cent of them are still engaged in that work either on land or sea.


William Daum Euler: Are they in any way under
the control of the Department of National Revenue?


Hugh Guthrie: No, they are entirely
under the officers of the police.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Could the minister give
the percentage of increase in the force during the past year?


Hugh Guthrie: I think I can give the
actual figures of increase. The actual increase including the customs service last year was 979 men. That includes the men taken on the forces of the various provinces.


Mr. POWER:: What is the total now?


Hugh Guthrie: It is 2,348.


Charles Gavan Power: Could the minister tell the
number of men in the force in 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932?
3640	COMMONS
Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Hugh Guthrie: In 1930 it was 1,245; in 1931, 1,351; and in 1932, 2,343.
The following were the increases:
Engaged constables on the five year term
(western territory, formerly provincial)	294
Alberta provincial police, three year term.	135
Alberta provincial police, one year term.	15
Manitoba provincial police, five year term	5
Manitoba provincial police, three year term	55
Manitoba provincial police, one year term	11
New Brunswick provincial police, three
year term	 32
New Brunswick provincial police, one
year term	 18
New Brunswick provincial police, six
months	 1
Nova Scotia provincial police, three year
term	 52
Nova Scotia provincial police, cne year
term	 38
Prince Edward Island provincial police.	8
Preventive service, one	year	term.. ..	147Preventive service, six	months	
28Reengaged after leaving	
58Rejoined after desertion	
2Engaged special constables	
277
1,176
Discharged through death or expiration of service	 197
Net total	 979
That is found at page seven of the commissioner's report.


Charles Gavan Power: Is there a system of yearly re-engagement for those employed in the provincial service? Are they re-attested so to speak at the end of every yeaT?


Hugh Guthrie: No, they are engaged for definite periods, three and five years.


Charles Gavan Power: In the preventive service
also?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Charles Marcil: Do the constables serving
in the province of Quebec remain under the control of the department as well?


Hugh Guthrie: Nominally they are
under the control of the Department of Justice, but actually under control of the officers of the force.


Charles Marcil: Are there any under the control of the Department of Inland Revenue?


Hugh Guthrie: No, none at all.


Charles Marcil: They are doing preventive work for that department.


Hugh Guthrie: They are doing it for that department but under control of the mounted police.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The minister gave the total as 2,348 but I find that on the 30th of March when the resolution was

being discussed in committee the number- was given as 2,402 of other ranks and 98 officers, making exactly 2,500.


Hugh Guthrie: The figures I give this afternoon are up to date.


William Daum Euler: Is that portion of the preventive service that serves on the water, say in the gulf of St. Lawrence, also under the mounted police?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, that is under the mounted police also. We have 101 vessels of various kinds including power boats, seagoing and inland. These are manned by men under the mounted police.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can the minister give us the cost of the mounted police service for the last fiscal year?


Hugh Guthrie: The cost per man over all, that is including all branches of the service, officers and constables, is $2,250 each, that is the average. In the Hansard report of my remarks last week they had it as $2,500, or the newspapers had.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hansard has it correctly, at page 3541.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What was the total spent in the fiscal year?


Hugh Guthrie: I think we spent all of last year's estimate, which was $5,569,819 and an additional supplementary vote which was passed last month, I think $375 or $350.


Eugène Fiset: May I ask the minister if the men belonging to the customs service have been taken on on probation for six months or a year and if they are going to be re-engaged for the full period of time covered by the regulation?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, some men have been taken on practically on trial. There were some 600 or 700 men in the preventive service in the customs, a selection was made according to merit, I understand, by the officers of the customs department, and from the lists supplied 350 were permanently taken on. A small number I think were taken on on probation for short terms.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would like to say a word on this question. It appears that we are spending about $5,500,000 in providing a police force for the Dominion of Canada on account of the economic conditions that prevail at the present time in many parts of the dominion. Of this $5,500,000 the major part is spent on that part of the force which is engaged, not in what you might call customs preventive

Penitentiary Act
work but in maintaining what is commonly termed law and order. The Minister of Justice in his remarks on the second reading spoke of danger from the activities of the communist party in Canada. I am inclined to think that we overdo this alleged danger. We find at the present time throughout Canada a great amount of dissatisfaction and unrest, not on account of the communist party but on account of the vast amount of unemployment that prevails in the dominion.
I am quite satisfied that if we had not so much unemployment there would be no need for the increase in police and this large expenditure for that purpose. Instead of spending about S5,500,000 for the mounted police force to preserve law and order in this country I wish we would spend even a small part of that money in trying to find ways to eliminate unemployment in our mid9t. If we did we could very well save a large part of this expenditure. I am quite satisfied that there is not much spread of what you might call communism in the dominion. But in any industrial centre in Canada you find great numbers of people unemployed. Where you have vast numbers of men and women out of work you are bound to have dissatisfaction. There are at the present time about 1,000,000 people out of work. When you have one-third of the employable population unemployed you naturally have dissatisfaction. So while I presume the government think this sum is necessary to take care of the situation, for my own part I wish they would try to deal with unemployment in a more fundamental way than they are doing at present. If they did there would be no need to spend these very great sums of money.


Hugh Guthrie: There is this to be pointed out-perhaps it has not come to the attention of my hon. friend-that we have now in the customs branch of the mounted police a total of 542 men. On land we employ 350 and on the sea 192. The cost of that branch of the service is $1,504,104. That money was formerly expended, and a considerable sum more, by the customs department. Now it has been taken over by the mounted police and has increased the mounted police vote by that amount. It must also be remembered that we now have taken over the police work of six of the provinces. They pay us about $800,000 for that service and we pay the rest ourselves. That is an addition to the mounted police vote which did not exist in previous years. It is not fair to charge this all to mounted police work. That work has been done for the last thirty years by the provincial
governments, who maintained provincial police forces. Now we have taken over that work, and as a result we have had to increase the mounted police vote and the personnel of the force very greatly.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Could the minister give the committee the net increase in the force so fair as the Dominion government is concerned?


Hugh Guthrie: About 300.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 1-Arrangement with local governments.
Hugh Guthrie: This is the only section remaining, and I am going to move that it be struck out. I believe I will do better to adopt the principle laid down by hon. gentlemen opposite and, instead of having a continuous measure, take advantage of the section in the relief bill which provides for peace, order and good government, should the occasion arise. Therefore I move that section I be struck out.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 59, to amend the Penitentiary Act.
Ernest Lapointe: I did not take part in the debate on the resolution which preceded this bill, Mr. Speaker, because I am largely in sympathy with the object which it seeks to attain. There are one or two clauses in the bill, however, to which I think I must register my dissent, and of course I could not foresee those when the resolution was before the house.
With regard to the appointment of wardens, deputy wardens and guards, I must confess that I have always held the opinion that such appointments should not be made by the Civil Service Commission. Speaking in this house in 1925, as will be found at page 1284 of Hansard for that year, I said:
I am responsible for what happens in the penitentiaries of Canada at the present time. I am responsible if there are evasions; I am responsible if there is a rebellion in a penitentiary anywhere; and I think it is not fair that the wardens and the deputy -wardens,
Penitentiary Act

the main officers, and even the guards in the penitentiaries, should be selected under a system of competitive examination. It is absurd. I think that penitentiary work should be compared with the work of the mounted police or even of the militia. In the penitentiary the work that is to be done by the guards, and very often their lives are in jeopardy, depends for its success more on the character and the temperament of the man than on what they may happen to know about geography or arithmetic or anything else. This conviction I have formed during the year and a half in which I have been at the head of the administration of the Department of Justice. I believe in control by the Civil Service Commission when it is a case of appointments in connection with ordinary departmental work, but I do not think they are qualified to select the men to conduct the penitentiaries.
I am still of this opinion, and I am quite willing to support that part of the bill which gives to the governor in council or to the minister the responsibility for the appointment of the wardens and guards for the reasons I expressed at that time. This bill, however, goes much further; under section 2 even the clerks and employees in the penitentiaries branch of the department will be removed from the control of the Civil Service Commission. They are to be appointed and their salaries are to be fixed by the governor in council, without regard to the classification of the Civil Service Commission, to which the civil servants in all the other departments are subject. I do not see any reason why the stenographers, clerks or other employees in the department here in Ottawa should be considered in the same category as wardens or guards who -have to deal with the inmates of the penitentiaries. This is removing from the operation of the Civil Service Act a class of employees who certainly should remain under it.
When we were considering amendments to the Civil Service Act last year I remember that the report of the committee contained a recommendation to the effect that there should be a standing parliamentary committee on civil service, to deal with all civil service matters and with such changes as are suggested by the present bill. I do not understand why this recommendation has not been acted upon and why this proposal was not submitted to such a committee before being submitted to the house. I would ask my hon. friend not to persist in his intention to take away from the control of the Civil Service Act the ordinary employees of the penitentiaries branch. So far as the rest of the bill is concerned I am quite ready to support him.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: In connection with this bill I pointed out a year 
ago, and I also sent to the committee considering the matter a communication to the effect, that these appointments were not being made by the Civil Service Commission. The names of fifty per cent of the guards at Portsmouth penitentiary have never -been submitted 'to the -Civil Service Commission, and those that have been submitted have always been -on the recommendation of the warden. No matter what objection is made to my statement, I know what I am talking about, and I know that these guards had to see the warden to have his approval, they had to have their examination, and then they were submitted by the warden to the superintendent. I will admit that many of them were pigeonholed at the time and never reached t'he Civil Service Commission, but those who were recommended did go forward with the approval of the warden.
I contend 'that last year the only function the commission performed in connection with these cases was 'this. When these names were submitted as those of men eligible to the civil service, the commission questioned the preference, first as to whether they were returned men and secondly whether -they had disability. I understand that the preference is to continue and in that case there is a difficulty now. In what way will the warden, at the time he recommends a guard, kno-w what his preference is or whether he has had a disability? It will not do merely to state it on his application. It must be obtained in some way, and that was the only function the Civil Service Commission ever discharged in regard to the appointment of these guards and officers.
Last year I opposed this procedure because we were sailing under false colours at the time, believing that the commission made these appointments, whereas they only put their stamp upon them after a certain investigation on the part of the Department of Pensions and National Health. At present there are sixty guards in Portsmouth penitentiary. The names of these men have never been submitted to the oommission, unless it be within the last two weeks, and I cannot see that we are getting very much further with this bill. I am certainly in sympathy with it; I certainly -believe that the warden should select Ms men and that that recommendation should go. I am very much afraid however, that with the superintendent we have to-day some names will never reach the toT- A man who can write what he did about returned -men will not, in my opinion, have any sympathy with them. I shall hare more to say in this regard in committee.

Penitentiary Act
I am not very much concerned as to who appoints the guards. I believe that in the past we have made an excellent selection of guards and the country would have known of very few of them having failed if we had not had the report just submitted. Do not let us think that this is the first investigation we have had in connection with penitentiaries. In 1919-20 a new superintendent came in and wTe were told then that the whole thing was wrong; everything was inefficient, everything had to be upset, and the disturbance was just as great as it is to-day. We were told then that the selections that were being made would have an exemplary effect; we were going to have excellent guards and a system never before seen in our penitentiaries. But a new superintendent comes in to-day and he says, "They are useless; they are no good." Thirty or forty of them have been dismissed and he is waiting for a number of them now to give their evidence in connection with the trial of these prisoners before he boots them out. He is holding them until their evidence is in. As I say, I am not so much concerned as to the appointments; that is something which I believe will come out all right. I believe that some of the best men that have ever served in a penitentiary have been dismissed, and that by an inexperienced superintendent who never knew anything about a penitentiary. It looks to me as if the only thing he knows about it, the only thing he is interested in, is a rifle; but the rifle is the smallest part of the administration of a penitentiary. What I am more interested in is the dismissal of guards, and for twenty-five or thirty years I have been fighting this question in regard to the dismissal of guards.
I want to give the house an illustration of the way in which these men are treated on dismissal. Here is what one guard received:
This is to advise you that your services as temporary guard at this institution will terminate at the close of the prison year, September 30, 1931.
The above action is taken owing to the fact that you have failed to show the necessary initiative and interest in the duties assigned to you. For the past five months you have been given every opportunity to make good, but notwithstanding the warnings and advice you have received from the deputy warden and chief keeper, you have failed to show any improvement.


Hugh Guthrie: Who signed that?


Arthur Edward Ross: E. R. Jackson. I am going to give a number of these cases. Now, this man never was instructed; he never had a word from the deputy warden, never a word from the chief keeper except "good morning." That was the only instruction he had, and he is
thrown out. What is the result? It is not merely the fact that he is thrown out of employment, but he is 'blacklisted, so that he cannot get a job in any department. He is simply blacklisted, and that is allowed to go without investigation. The man has no chance to defend himself.
Here is another case. Here is a man who made a complaint in the present minister's time. He was charged with the loss of gasoline-the matter was looked into by some official. The question whether the gasoline had really disappeared or how it had disappeared was never investigated but the man was dismissed because he went downtown and asked whether a certain guard had received gasoline at that station. The finding is there. This man never had a chance, although he is one of the best appointments; he held a high position in the city of Toronto. I may say that he is not in my constituency. The question as to where the gasoline went was never investigated.
We see a man being dismissed on account of a little scrap of paper. This man was a fireman, and the strange thing is that this piece of paper cannot be located to-day. Fourteen years after his dismissal the blacklist is counted against him and he cannot get a job. To-day there are twenty or thirty guards who are going, and this is the manner in which they are being dismissed:
Acting under instructions received from Ottawa-
Now note this:
-I have to advise you that you will be retired from the staff of this institution to promote efficiency.
Is there no such thing as British justice, even though you are employed in a department of government? Cannot a man go and ask, "Why am I dismissed?" The question is important to the man because he cannot get a job in any other department. He is blacklisted and cannot even establish his defence. Statements are made in the report of the present superintendent which are absolutely false. I challenge him, this government and this House of Commons, to give these men a hearing. I know they will be able to prove that the charges are absolutely false. I am of the opinion that the warden should appoint his own guards, that he should be able to see them before they are taken on but I am also of the opinion that British justice should be shown to the men employed in the department and that they should be given a reason for their dismissal.
A keeper was suspended on November 29. The superintendent gave him to understand
Penitentiary Act

that he would be reinstated but he remained suspended until last Monday when he was paid off up to November 29. The matter for which he was suspended was one not under his jurisdiction according to the regulations of the penitentiary. The superintendent being new on the job and not knowing the regulations laid a charge and the keeper was suspended. I have been fighting for twenty-five years to have these men given the opportunity of a hearing. Has a man in this country no right to know why he is dismissed? Is he to be told: "There is your notice, get out." If there are communists and reds in this country, more have been made during the last four or five months by such actions as these than could be made by ten Woods-worths, fifty Heaps or one hundred Irvines. If a man has any red blood in him, he wants to fight for himself.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: A Ross generally has.


Arthur Edward Ross: A Ross does not have to have questions asked for him; he can state his own case and ask his own questions.
A deputy warden who had been twenty-eight years in the service of this institution was dismissed. The charge made against him in the report was absolutely false. This man has had no chance to defend himself against the position in which he was put in the report. Will this country stand for a man having such an arbitrary power that he can dismiss another man who has had twenty-eight years of service? Should not sympathy be shown for a man who has had twenty-eight years of service without one black mark? I know of another case not many years ago where a deputy warden and another official who had been twenty-six years in the service were dismissed from Portsmouth penitentiary because of a charge laid by one of the lowest pieces of humanity that could come out of the slums of Montreal. These men were dismissed upon the word of a convict.
The report states that in certain cases the men resigned, but if they did so, they resigned with a pistol at their head. They were told to sign their resignations or their gratuities would be lost. There should be an open hearing of these cases and I offer to resign my seat if they cannot be proved. I have that much courage anyway. These men are Liberals as well as Conservatives, so I am not talking from the political point of view. I have never yet canvassed civil servants during any of the elections because I feel that they should be independent. I am not interested in. the appointment of guards but I am interested in these dismissals. Unless something is done I intend to fight just as long as

I am a member of parliament. I shall deal with other sections of the report when the opportunity presents itself later on.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the bon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) may I say on behalf of most of the hon. members on this side that his Strictures on 'the Department of Justice would, we believe, apply equally to most other departments. Many arbitrary dismissals and dismissals without investigation have been made since this government came into power. May I offer him in this instance, and in others if he so desires, our assistance in order to bring before this house the injustice of many of these dismissals. I feel it is my duty to bring before the house certain portions of the report of D. M. Ormond in connection with the Kingston penitentiary disturbances. This report is addressed to the Minister of Justice and has a bearing upon the matter now before the house in that he criticizes very severely the system of appointment of guards, wardens and other employees of the penitentiaries. The following appears at the bottom of page 8 of the report, under the heading Training of Guards:
Shortly after the end of the late war, a fair sprinkling of guards -were brought into the service wrho had had military training of some type or other. These, however, were not closely scrutinized, and at the present time there are many guards who had little or no service that would recomend them to be penitentiary or prison guards, mostly having terminated from three to five years' service with the rank of private, which would indicate that they had reached their limit in military advancement, and could not be expected to show a higher standard in civil life.
I have never posed in this house as the friend of the soldier, in fact I have opposed a great many of the things which the soldiers wished to have put into force. I have never been a consistent upholder of the preference for returned soldiers, but I do think that any one of us who has had experience with private soldiers during the war would be false to the friends he made during that time if he allowed an insult of this kind to pass unchallenged in a public document. I had the honour and privilege of serving as a private soldier for a considerable period during the war. The hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray) served as a private soldier during the whole war, and I say without any fear of contradiction that I am prepared to take his judgment against that of Brigadier General Ormond at any time.
I do not wish to say anything disagreeable about Brigadier General Ormond, because he

Penitentiary Act
is not in the house, but I think it should be said of him that if anyone has shown his lack of capacity for the position which he occupies, it is General Ormond. What business had he to say that because a man had not had an opportunity of achieving promotion during the three or five years or, as a matter of fact, any period he spent in the army during the war, he was debarred from civil occupation as a gaol guard, when we have in the house men who represent constituencies and when we have throughout the length and breadth of the land men holding the highest positions in civilian life who were soldiers in the war? If only Brigadier General Ormond had been able to enter into the feelings, of many of the soldiers during the war he would have known well the expression often used in the trenches when speaking of the Germans: "If they would trade red hats with us, we would be in Berlin before Christmas." In no way has this expression been more strikingly illustrated than by this report. Brigadier General Ormond should know, if he does not, that it was not the fault of many of those soldiers that they were not promoted. Many who achieved commissions did so by influence; many others did so because they went over early in the war, and he should know that in the last two years of the war there came over from Canada battalion after battalion fully staffed with officers and with not enough men. Place had to be found for those who had obtained commissions before leaving Canada and this was done to the detriment of those who had given the best service at the front. When the history of the war comes to be written, it will be found that the backbone of the British as well as of the Canadian army was the buck private in the rear rank; he showed courage, initiative and qualities that went to make the Canadian expeditionary force what it was. This house would be false to its trust to those soldiers unless many members register their protest against this report.
I do not see in his seat the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), but I know if he were here, he who devoted a great deal of his time gallantly and nobly to the effort of saving those men by giving them the best attention of his healing art, would take the same attitude as do many of us. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) during the war achieved honour, but he did so-and he will be the first to admit this- because the private soldiers in his battalion backed him to the limit. I do not need to speak for the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Ross). He has expressed his views on
this matter on many occasions. Almost every member, whether on this side or on the other, should feel it his duty to tell General Ormond that he is not qualified for the position to which he has been appointed, the reason being, first, on account of the absolutely false statement which he made in the report and, second, if for no other reason, that he showed a remarkable lack of tact in making such a statement.
May I quote the minister himself as to the qualifications of a gaol guard? Surely if a gaol guard should have all these qualifications, the man who superintends him should have many more. I am not going to read them all, but some of them are as follows:
In the first place he must have the necessary physique, must be a strong, robust man. He must be a man of some education.
I suppose General Ormond believes there was nobody with any education in the ranks of the private soldiers. There are throughout Canada at least as many lawyers, doctors and other professional men who served as private soldiers as served with commissions.
He must be a man of intelligence and discretion. He must be a man of courage, that is very essential, because he has to deal with many very daring, reckless prisoners.
I suppose the man who dealt with many daring, reckless Germans, is not qualified.
There is a large proportion of very daring prisoners in our institutions at this time. Above all a guard should be a man possessed of an average amount of human sympathy.
I ask the minister whether General Ormond showed any human sympathy for those 600,000 returned soldiers throughout Canada when he said that because they were private soldiers they were not qualified to be good guards.
Above all a guard should be a man possessed of an average amount of human sympathy. I do not mean maudlin sentimentality, but human sympathy and discretion.
As regards discretion, I would say that General Ormond has signally failed.
I have under my hand the following resolution:
That the Kingston branch No. 9 Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League, have read with regret the insulting and ill founded remarks of Superintendent of Penitentiaries, D. M. Ormond, as reported in the Kingston Whig Standard on February 7, on page 10, which reads as follows:
Then they proceed to quote the section of General Ormond's report which I have read to the house. They continue:
That the Kingston branch of the Canadian Legion is able to give the names of doctors, lawyers, merchants, secretaries, bankers, members of parliament and men prominent in all
Penitentiary Act

walks of civil life to-day who served in the front line trenches of France and Flanders and other forward positions during the war who had the honour and distinction of the rank of private, gunner or sapper.
That some of the highest medals awarded by the British Empire were given to the private soldier who lived, ate and slept in the mud because he believed in his country and the best principles of freedom and did not enter the war in comfort and high military rank.
That the Kingston branch of the Canadian Legion No. 9 feel that the slur on the private soldiers whose names are carved in bronze and marble in our memorial hall and city monuments, who paid the supreme sacrifice in the great war should not be belittled or made cheap because some, who failed to respect the law of the country and probably did not serve overseas, find themselves in Portsmouth penitentiary and who got temporarily out of hand for a day or two.
That the raids on the German trenches for prisoners and the patrolling of no-man's land at night, was done by what rank of soldier- the private.
That the Kingston branch No. 9 Canadian Legion feel that Superintendent D.M. Ormond should make a public apology to relieve the feelings of the widows and mothers who lost husbands and sons serving in the great war with the rank of private.
That a copy of this resolution be sent to Doctor A. E. Ross; the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett; the lion. Hugh Guthrie; the Hon. R. J. Manion; the Hon. Hugh Stewart-
And so forth.
In conclusion, I would like to make this observation, that I do not believe there is any possibility of the returned soldier's preference being applied in any satisfactory manner if the application thereof is to be left to the discretion of a man like D. M. Ormond. I do not wish to oppose the bill for that reason, but I would very seriously suggest to the minister that before giving Ormond the power of a dictator in matters of this kind, he should see to it that in some way his power of either expelling or appointing private soldiers should be controlled and restricted.


Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) who has just resumed his seat and the hon. and gallant gentleman (Mr. Ross) who preceded him, will pardon me if I do not follow' them in all the intricacies that are involved in the appointment of inspectors, wardens, deputy wardens and so on. With what my hon. friend who has just resumed his seat has said with reference to the most unwarranted charge that has been made against the returned men now in the employ of the penitentiaries branch as orderlies, I fully agree. I do think it was a most unwarranted statement on the part of one placed in an important position to say what 
General Ormond said, and so far as I am concerned I am quite prepared to say to him that he ought to be censured as strongly as possible.
With what my hon., and, as I like to call him, my gallant friend from Kingston (Mr. Ross) has said, I am in agreement. The returned soldier's preference under this new scheme will be absolutely forgotten, or at least there is nothing in the bill that I can see anywhere that will safeguard that preference, yet the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has said that one of the primary qualifications for the position of superintendent, warden and guard should be that the appointees be quasimilitary men. With that I do not quite agree, but if the qualifications are to be such, then I doubt very much in view of certain, appointments which have recently been made by the government whether that will be the consideration that will 'be uppermost in the minds of those charged with making these appointments. The Minister of Justice the other day when he introduced the resolution said, at page 3545 of Hansard of March 30:
This measure has been brought forward only after very serious consideration not only on the part of myself and officers in my department, but on the part of my colleagues and the senior officers of the penitentiary staff.
That may be, but the hon. gentleman knows that there is on the statute books of Canada a law that is called the Civil Service Act, and I for one believe that as long as that law is there, it is incumbent on those whose duty it is to prepare laws, and to see to their functioning, to be the first ones to observe the law.
I contributed in no small degree, and with the greatest satisfaction possible to the fabrication of the reports of the committee under the Chairmanship of the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm), of March and June, 1923, on the administration of the Civil Service Act, when the Civil Service Commission was under review at that time, and one of the recommendations of that report was this:
Your committee is of the opinion that the two fundamental principles of the Civil Service Act are the merit system and the system of appointment by competitive examination, and that both these principles must be preserved.
Sir, as long as it is my great honour and privilege to be a member of this house, and as long as this law is on the statute books, it is my duty to see that it is observed, and for its maintenance I shall continue to fight. But having subscribed to it, I must of necessity oppose any departure from it.

Penitentiary Act
But the Minister o.f Justice is not satisfied with bringing in a new measure to take away from the Civil Service Commission something of its jurisdiction. It was in 1918 that the hon. gentleman was one of those who in a moment of high sentiment formed the idea of abolishing patronage. It was in 1919 that the Civil Service Aot was so amended as to allow of the bringing down of the classification, but it was in 1921 that the hon. gentleman and those associated with him tried by means of the Spinney bill to ruin the aot, and had it not been for those who sat in opposition at that time the Civil Service Aot would have been ruiinea. Unfortunately there was maintained in the act one section which permitted the Civil Service Commission to do certain things in the way of releasing positions. The Minister of Justice the other day said, at page 3557 of Hansard-and this is no excuse why the thing should be repeated :
The late government, I think with the assistance of my vote-
It was well that he said that because otherwise it would have been put up to him:
-appointed a large number of preventive officers. I think there were some six or seven hundred such officers, three hundred and fifty of which are now in the mounted police. None of these men come under the Civil Service Commission. In the Department of National Revenue there is a large staff of appraisers who are not appointed by the commission. There are a large number of employees in the Department of Finance in a similar position. The employees of the Soldier Settlement Board and of the department presided over by my hon. friend the acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) are not subject at all to the Civil Service Commission. The members of the military forces and the mounted police, the employees of the tariff board, the radio commission-
And any other commission that may subsequently be appointed by this administration will, of course, be in the same category:

and the research council also do not come under the commission. There is no new departure suggested by this measure.
But neither is there any closure on this sort of thing; there is no end to it. Just because that has been done in the past is no reason why a measure should now be introduced into this house which will release from the operation of this act some thousand or more employees. There is no reason why that should be done. At least the hon. gentleman who is in charge of this bill, if he had wanted to follow the law, could have found that relic which is to be found in the act after they had laid their unholy hands upon It, and which is known as section 59. The
hon. gentleman has said that he has had conferences with the officers of the penitentiaries branch. Of course, they would be the first ones to ask for a release of these people from the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. The hon. gentleman also says that he has asked to have a conference with the members of his own department. It would have been extraordinary if these people, knowing what wras in the mind of the hon. gentleman, had not acceded to his wish. The Civil Service Commission charged with the administration of the Civil Service Act, if the qualifications set for the employees of the penitentiary were not satisfactory, could still have made the appointments on qualifications which were considered satisfactory. The minister could have asked the Civil Service Commission to appoint men under new regulations. Did he? The law was in the hands of the hon. gentleman, and why was there any necessity to amend the Penitentiary Act? Why did he not take advantage of the Civil Service Act, section 59 of which reads:
In any case where the commission decides that it is not practicable-
If the hon. gentleman thinks it is not practicable in this case he could have submitted it to the Civil Service Commission:
-nor in the public interest to apply this act to any position or positions, the commission may, with the approval of the governor in council, exclude such position or positions in whole or in part from the operation of the act, and make such regulations as are deemed advisable prescribing how such position or positions are to be dealt with.
I say that if there is any sincerity of purpose in this measure now before the house, the hon. gentleman and his administration should proceed under the terms of the law that is now on the statute books, that very same law which was placed on the statute books at the instigation and on the demand of the hon. gentleman who is now charged with this bill. Why do they not ask the Civil Service Commission to say whether it is practicable or in the public interest that these men should continue to be appointed in the manner in which they have been appointed? If the qualifications are not satisfactory they should be changed. But the merit system should be followed in the matter of appointments and in the matter of promotions.
But there is more than that, and more will be said when the bill is in committee. So far as I can see from the spirit of this bill the whole administration will be left in the hands of the superintendent, subject of course -and that is a very wide condition-to the governor in counoil. The range of salaries,
Penitentiary Act

promotion, superannuation, deductions, will all be subject to the recommendation of the superintendent. This is one of .the worst measures to be introduced and one that departs to the greatest extent from sound principles of administration. I wonder how the minister can expect to inspire confidence in the minds of those charged with the protection of life and the safety of property when they feel they are at the mercy, in regard to advancement or discharge, "of recommendations from Ottawa," as used by the hon. member for Kingston in explaining certain dismissals. The hon. member for Kingston has said that men who have given years of service are discharged on recommendation from Ottawa and nothing more said. The Civil Servioe Act provides in section 55 as to political partisanship, and section 52 governs dismissals, but once these men are placed under the jurisdiction of the superintendent there will be wholesale dismissals, with the same answer, "You are discharged upon recommendation from Ottawa."
What is required is tightening up of the Civil Service Act, not nibbling away from it. And may I say to my hon. friend, if the government have decided to take these men from under the operation of the Civil Service Act, let them not appoint any more commissioners because before the commissioners are appointed the Civil Service Commission will have become useless.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I was particularly pleased when the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) brought up the matter of dismissals, because we are even more concerned about dismissals than appointments. At various times I have been in consultation with the Minister of Justice in connection with dismissals that occurred at the New Westminster penitentiary. One feature that I think he should take particular notice of is that guards can actually be "framed" by convicts in the prison. I have a case before me in which a convict after his discharge swore in evidence before a special constable that he had framed a certain guard in the penitentiary. I brought that to the attention of the minister, but it seems that the report of the warden had to be accepted. I do not know of anjr other department concerned with the administration of justice in which the word of a prisoner is taken against that of an officer. In this case the guard had been attending to his duties in the usual way, and this was resented by this particular prisoner, who was a rather dangerous character, and he made the statement that he

would frame this guard. And he did. He placed cigarette papers-which are contraband in the penitentiary-in a certain place, and then notified the warden that they were there. On investigation they were found, and on that and that alone this guard was dismissed. I think this matter of dismissals should be given very serious attention, because if that procedure is carried on and the word of a convict is taken in preference to that of a guard it is1 very serious indeed, especially when by this bill power is vested in such a man as General Ormond.
The minister also spoke about the matter of instruction, that under the new act instruction would be given to the guards. My information is that there is now no provision for instruction of guards. They are handed a copy I believe of the regulations to look at, that copy must be handed back, and kept in the head office; how can the guard become acquainted with the regulations if he is not provided with a copy? Then only those guards who are on duty as guards with rifles are allowed to carry or handle rifles. It does not require an act like this to make it possible to instruct a man in the use of a rifle; all that is needed is a provision in the regulations that he be given say half an hour rifle drill every day. Under the present system a guard has no chance to become proficient in the penitentiary regulations unless he takes time to go to the head office and study them.
But the most serious thing brought out was the disclosure by the hon. member for Kingston, in the matter of dismissals. I think that the whole situation should be looked into, because there have been many dismissals of guards, who have afterwards been blacklisted, so to speak, and will be all the days of their lives as far as obtaining a permanent job in the government service is concerned.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Speaking to the resolution last Thursday afternoon, while opposing it in toto, I did suggest to the minister that when the bill came before the house he make certain that a clause was included providing that the act should not take away from the returned men the preference given them under the Civil Service Act. I mentioned at that time that in 1932 when certain revenue post offices were taken from under the operation of the Civil Service Act there was included in the amendment a section retaining the preference to returned soldiers. That is found in the statutes of Canada, 1932, chapter 40, section 57A, which reads as follows:
The provisions of this act shall not apply to the position of postmaster of any revenue post

Penitentiary Act
office the revenue of which does not exceed three thousand dollars per annum; but the preference provided by section twenty-nine of this act, in favour of the persons mentioned therein, shall be applied in respect of appointments to such positions.
I felt then that the minister would give serious consideration to that subject matter, and that when this bill was brought into the house we would find in it a similar provision. But I have looked for it in vain, there is no such provision. I again urge upon the minister that he include in this bill such a provision. At the same time, after the statement of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and after reading what the superintendent of penitentiaries thinks of private soldiers, one wonders whether there is any great value in retaining the preference in the act. I hope however, that this house and public opinion generally will be so unanimous in condemning what the hon. member for Quebec South so rightly characterized as an insult to the private soldiers of this country that 'General Ormond will not repeat the remarks he has made. I have no great hope, however, that he will prove a success in the position to which he has been appointed; my information is that he has not been successful in any of the other ventures over which he has had command. One has only to look back at the history of Rhyl at the close of the war to learn something of the capabilities of this gentleman. I consider that the remarks made by Brigadier-General Ormond are an example-


An hon. MEMBER:: That statement about General Ormond is not correct.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Then my hon. friend can get
up and refute it. I consider these remarks to be an example of red tape snobbishness and brass hat unctuousness. Fortunately there were not many men of this calibre holding high commands, but I consider that as a private soldier I would be derelict to my duty if I did not stand in my place here and hurl back in his face the insult he has written into the records of this house. I say that when we have a report made not only to the minister but to the country in which words of this sort are used we can expect little from the superintendent of penitentiaries.


Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I am	one
who served in the ranks during the war; I spent four years and seven months there leaving, as I entered, the equivalent to a private. I say that without shame; I am proud of it. I do not believe that even generals have a first mortgage on
all the brains and intellect in the country, and I regard this statement as an insult to the men who served during the war. After ail is said and done it takes some courage to be at the front-at the front, and not at the rear. I believe this is also an insult to the intelligence of this House of Commons.
This report is a contradiction in itself, Mr. Speaker; it finds fault with the conditions under which the men were appointed, and says the rules of the Civil Service Commission were not followed. The whole report is in conflict with the spirit of this bill. Frankly I believe the government followed an absolutely wrong policy in connection with the riots at Kingston and the other penitentiaries. A royal commission should have been appointed to investigate the question, 'because many rumours have been broadcast throughout the country. I have one in mind; it was said that the wife of one of the brokers serving his sentence at Kingston visited one of the officials, and that during her visit her husband was sent to the house as a janitor. Statements have appeared in various newspapers throughout the country; at the moment I am only going to quote from the Conservative press. First I will refer to the Financial Post; I do not think any criticism can be made with regard to an opinion expressed by that publication. Referring to the article which appeared in the Financial Post, The Toronto Globe said:
On the other hand, the charges of the Financial Post regarding Collins Bay reflect a degree of public uneasiness that requires another sort of inquiry, one wholly removed from any aspect of parliamentary or political control. Yet the slogan. "Steal a million and see Collins Bay," recorded as having winged its way through Portsmouth, implies that much of the trouble, if not all. has been due to the incarceration of stock brokers in the "preferred class" institution.	.
Here is another statement from the same publication:
"On more than one occasion the Financial Post has said that back of some of the financial crooks who have been sent to various penitentiaries were bigger and more influential people whose names were never dragged through the newspaper headlines. Scapegoats, tools, chestnut-pulling monkeys served terms to pay for the illicit gains of financial ones in society." An inquiry into penitentiary administration will not be sufficient unless it brings out the complete story of the brokers.
Then we have the Toronto Telegram, which I would call friendly to the present administration. It contained this headline:
Closed Inquiry into Penal Conditions will not Satisfy Public Demand
Penitentiary Act

The article following contained these words:
It would be the part of wisdom for Hon. Hugh Guthrie to listen to the demand for a public inquiry, if only to demonstrate that he has nothing to hide.
Then I have the Hamilton Spectator, another recognized Conservative journal, which
says:
With such stories going the rounds and being elaborated upon in the telling, it will not suffice for the government to make a secret, internal inquiry and present a statement of the findings to the people, whose taxes support Portsmouth penitentiary. There will be a suspicion that the reason for the secret inquiry was that the department had something to hide. The searchlight should be played on every nook and cranny of Portsmouth and the public made acquainted with both sides of the story, and this form of probe, we think, will be insisted upon.
I still believe that would have been the proper policy in connection with those troubles. I am not unmindful of the inquiries that might be carried on by men who have such a background of training as that possessed by the gentleman referred to, but I am not very much impressed with the efficiency of military men in positions of this nature. We have seen an example in connection with certain police forces in this country, and here instead of having promotion within the department, gentlemen have been taken from outside, though they absolutely lack experience and knowledge of the practical problems which present themselves in connection with the administration of such institutions. Frankly I think the gentleman in question exhibited a degree of crust, to say the least, when one remembers that he lacked the necessary experience to carry out an investigation of this kind. I felt it my duty to make these observations and reflect what I believe is the considered view of the people of this country. I firmly believe that the policy which should have been pursued in connection with this investigation was the appointment of a commission of some sort before which those men referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) would have had the right to give their evidence, and possibly to be represented by counsel. I think that should have been done instead of the star chamber methods which were adopted.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker-


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: Oh.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Is my hon. friend from Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) really awake? Before this bill is given second reading I should like

to put myself on record as opposing it. I did so last Thursday, when the resolution was under discussion, and I wish to do so again to-day. I should like to read a telegram which I received from the secretary of the Civil Service local of North Battleford in regard to this legislation. It is as follows:
The civil servants of North Battleford are strongly opposed to the removal of the penitentiaries staffs from the Civil Service Act and respectfully solicit your opposition in this matter.
(Signed) V. J. Rogers,
Secretary.
Another telegram came to me from Saskatoon, dated March 3:
The Saskatoon members of the amalgamated civil servants of Canada respectfully protest against proposal to take the staffs of the penitentiaries away from the Civil Service Act.
Eggleston,
Secretary.
Further, I have a letter from Mr. Knowles, who is national secretary of the amalgamated civil servants of Canada. This is a national organization and I believe that two or three of the ideas put forward in this communication are well worthy of being placed on the records of the house. The minister the other night seemed to intimate that perhaps the civil servants of the country were taking too much upon themselves in opposing legislation of this kind, but in my view it is a very important thing to have a national organization which will indicate to the goverment in power precisely where it stands on any piece of legislation. I believe it is a help to the government, and any communications submitted to the government ought to be read with special interest. Mr. Knowles, in his statement, dated March 6, asks: What is the proposal? And he proceeds to say that the proposal means the removal of the entire penitentiary service, over nine hundred in number, guards, wardens, inspectors, superintendents, clerks, stenographers, bookkeepers, nurses and so on, from the provisions of the Civil Service Act. Now may I ask, what does this mean? It means that we are splitting the Civil Service Act into fragments, and by dividing it we intend to destroy it. That is the meaning of it. In other words, it is the thin end of the wedge, and if that course is persisted in there is no doubt as to what the result will be. The second question Mr. Knowles asks is this: What does this departure mean? He explains this departure means the appointment of all penitentiary officials by political patronage, as is the rule in the United States, where the penitentiary administration is admittedly much more corrupt and inefficient

Penitentiary Act
than it is in Canada. Do we want our penitentiary administration to become .more corrupt in Canada than it is in the United States? Do we want it to become -more inefficient? If we do, says the national secretary of this organization, then all we have to do is to adopt this legislation. Thirdly, Mr. Knowles asks what the results will be. He says the results will be that prison guards will be chosen as a reward for political services by those locally in charge of patronage, and that guards so chosen, owing to graft and inefficiency, weakness and loss of morale, will become a burden to the penitentiaries rather than a help; moreover, there will be wholesale dismissals on every change of government, and the extravagance and added cost will be paid by the people of Canada. Surely if these statements are sound we do not want to add to the cost of government in this country to any greater degree.
May I before closing put before the house the point of view of General Hughes, at one time superintendent of penitentiaries. General Hughes was a witness before the Spinney committee in 1921, and at page 234 of the report of that committee it is stated that he emphatically opposed the suggestion. At page 243 he is reported as having said:
We have got away from political appointments, thank goodness, and we are getting into our service men who in years to come will be a credit to the institution.
General Hughes, then, is of the opinion apparently that if we take the course we are about to adopt to-day we are doing something that will not be creditable to the country. Then the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), the leader of the government of which my hon. friend opposite is a responsible minister, has something to say on this question. What does the right Won. gentleman say? On May 8, 1928, as reported at page 2775 of Hansard, speaking against a measure of this [DOT]character, he said:
It means the recurrence of the patronage system, which should not be tolerated in this country. It is not conducive to good service, or to the public weal. While there have been many defects in connection with the administration of the civil service, the fact is that it is a great advance over anything we have heretofore had in this country. We protest against any effort being made to return to the old condition of patronage.
That is the point of view of the present Prime Minister, and we have also the opinion of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) as reported in Hansard of May 15, 1928, at page 3017-18:
Undoubtedly the patronage system had more evil attached to it than merit. Appointments 53719-231
under the patronage system are made for the purpose-I think I can put it simply and plainly-of giving jobs to those who are in favour with the ministry of the day, whatever ministry it is. . . . I am opposed to this bill to the extent that it departs from the principle of appointment by the Civil Service Commission.
Lastly, may I put on record the opinion of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King), who now leads His Majesty's loyal opposition in this House of Commons. On May 2, 1921, speaking against the Spinney bill, which aimed at exempting a portion of the outside service from the provisions of the Civil Service Act, the right hon. gentleman said:
It is a step entirely in the wrong direction.
Well, if the Spinney bill of twelve years ago was then a step in the wrong direction the principle of this bill is equally so to-day. We have the views of these leaders of public opinion which I have quoted, and I think it would be well for us to take their advice. If we followed their opinions we would scrap this piece of legislation now before the house and see to it that the appointments I have mentioned should come under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, thereby insuring to this country, so far as our penitentiaries are concerned, men who will know their duty and and do it in a way that will be a credit to the dominion.


Right Hon.   S@: May I say to my hon. friend from North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) and to my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) that there is no intention whatever of returning to the system of political patronage in a general way. This government is just as much in favour of appointments being made through the Civil Service Commission on merit as my hon. friends opposite can possibly be, but this is a peculiar situation. All that the Minister of Justice is asking the house to agree to is that the appointment of guards and officers of our penitentiaries shall be made practically in the same way as is the selection of constables for the mounted police force.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: This is going away beyond that.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: That is the intent of this act, and the Minister of Justice might repeat to my hon. friend from North Battleford the opinion which he has already given on this subject. The selection of guards for the penitentiaries under the Civil Service Commission has not been a success. In my opinion, they should be selected as

Penitentiary Act

the constables are selected for the mounted police force. There is no political patronage in connection with the choice of constables for that force, and I think every hon. member will agree with that statement. If I know of a man who in my opinion would make a good constable in the mounted police force, I would simply tell him to go to the office of the commissioner on Rideau street and be examined. The examination is very careful both as to the physical condition and mental capacity of the applicant. Appointments are made entirely upon merit and there is no political patronage whatever. There will be no political patronage in the appointment of officers and guards of the penitentiaries as provided for by this bill. The hon. member for Ottawa has the civil service particularly under his care, and has to get up and object to this bill on general principles.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Not particularly.


George Halsey Perley: As to the wisdom of the Civil Service Act, I am entirely in accord with my hon. friend.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I may be the minister
representing the civil service.


George Halsey Perley: Perhaps when my hon. friend's party gets into power he may be a new minister of civil service.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Do you think he has a
good reputation?


George Halsey Perley: There are a great many hon. members on the other side who are particularly careful about the civil service now that they are in opposition.
What we are asking is that the guards and officers in the penitentiary force shall be chosen on merit. The Civil Service Commission does not have an opportunity of inspecting applicants and making their personal acquaintance as could be done by the superintendent or whoever is given authority by him to select these men. The penitentiary guards are really a quasi-military force, somewhat similar to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I do not consider that the altering of the present system of appointing these guards and other officers can be considered as an attack upon the merit system. With appointments being made to this very important service in the manner provided for by this bill there would be more surety of obtaining those qualified for the positions. The appointments would be made without political partisanship of any kind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The speech

just made by my right hon. friend, the hon. minister who is member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) is very similar to the one made by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) during the debate upon the resolution. At that time there were some hon.' members on this side who were inclined to support the minister in what he was proposing as far as the appointment of guards, wardens and superintendent of the penitentiaries was concerned. If the bill did not go any further than that-


Hugh Guthrie: If we could get the bill
into committee we could discuss the details.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to finish first what I have to say. If the bill did not go any further than that I imagine many hon. members on this side would, in view of the special circumstances mentioned by the minister, be agreeable to the government having the special powers which it is asking for in this bill. The former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has however pointed out that while this bill seeks to remove the superintendent, the wardens, the deputy wardens and guards from the control of the civil service, it seeks also to take out from that control practically the entire staff of the penitentiaries branch of the Department of Justice. One section of the bill provides that the governor in council may appoint inspectors, wardens, deputy wardens and other officers and in addition, such officers, clerks and employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the penitentiaries branch of the Department of Justice. These last mentioned employees are not upon the staffs of the penitentiaries; they are in the penitentiaries branch of the Department of Justice. Unless the minister has his bill amended in these particulars, all these clerks and officials, including a purchasing agent, will be taken out from under the control of the commission. The bill provides also that the governor in council shall approve the salaries to be paid to these different officials. These clerks and officials are similar to the clerks and officials in other departments of the public service, and there is no more reason why they should be taken out from under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, upon special or other grounds, than there is for taking out from under the provisions of that act the officials of the Department of National Defence, the Department of Railways and Canals, the Department of Trade and Commerce or any other department of the public service. If my right hon. friend has been speaking on behalf of the ministry of which

Penitentiary Act
he is a member, I suppose we can. assume that the Minister of Justice intends to amend the bill.


George Halsey Perley: No. I am simply supporting my colleague the Minister of Justice in connection with this very necessary legislation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Apparently the government hoped to get this bill through second reading without opposition by giving us the tender assurance that such was all that was being asked for. We find now that the government is asking for something more; it is seeking to take out from under the provisions of the Civil Service Act large numbers of clerks, officials and others who are not connected in any way with the actual administration and management of the penitentiaries. If such is the view, we will find it necessary to continue to oppose this measure as strongly as possible on its second reading.
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say that I do not agree with either my leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) or the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe); as far as I am concerned, I am opposed to the whole bill and intend to vote against it. I may have some doubts as to the superintendent, but I have no doubts as to the other officials. I look upon this bill as an attempt on the part of the government to take a large number of officers out from under the control of the Civil Service Act. I have not heard one single word in explanation of why these officials should be removed. The statement has been made that a better class of civil servant could be employed if the appointments were taken away from the Civil Service Commission, but I cannot understand why the Civil Service Commission should not be efficient in one department when it is efficient in others. A great majority of the selections made to-day are made upon the recommendations of the officers in charge or of the men under whom the appointees would work, and until further reasons are given as to why a change should be made in this method, I propose to vote against the bill.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, there are just one or two remarks I wish to make, particularly with regard to the superintendent. A rather embittered censure has been made of this official by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross), the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray). Replying to these hon. gentlemen, I might say that this official is an appointee of 53719-231J
the Civil Service Commission. I knew of General Ormond by name and reputation but I never had the pleasure of meeting him personally until after he was appointed last August. The Civil Service Commission proceeded by way of advertisement and examination of applicants and recommended the appointment of General Ormond. I have no reason to regret his appointment. From all I can gather, in the eight or nine months he has been acting as superintendent of penitentiaries, he has done excellent work; he has devoted himself at the rate of probably eighteen hours a day to the work of those institutions and has produced a tremendous improvement throughout all the penitentiary systems in Canada. An exaggerated idea was, I think, conveyed by the three hon. members who discussed that clause in the superintendent's report in reference to returned soldiers. I see no object in exaggerating matters of that kind as has been done to-day.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The statement speaks for itself.


Hugh Guthrie: It might have been well had that not been in the report; but it is there and everybody concerned has read it. I see no reason, however, for the use of such language as has been used in the house today in regard to that particular statement.
Regarding the statement of the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray) about returned soldiers, as I intimated when I moved this resolution., a large number of returned soldiers will certainly be employed, but it will be very difficult to apply to guards and other officials in penitentiaries the particular section of the Civil Service Act which gives preference to returned soldiers. The preference includes disabled men, and the greater the disability, the greater the preference. That would hardly apply to the class of men we desire to secure in our penitentiaries.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That is true within reason.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the language of the act, but I am in favour, so far as we can do so, of employing practically all returned men. We cannot, however, employ pensioners who have been disabled-that, I think, goes without any further argument-for positions of the kind to which I have referred, such as wardens, keepers and guards in our penitentiaries.
The other point with which I wish to deal is that the officials regarding whom I feel chiefly concerned, and perhaps the only ones, are those who are in actual control in the penitentiaries. There is a very limited staff
Penitentiary Act

outside the penitentiary walls; there is a headquarters branch where there is a purchasing agent and one or two clerks, and then, there is the general headquarters branch where there are some stenographers, bookkeepers, auditors and the like. I am not going to press that these be taken from the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. The only ones that I have any desire to remove from its jurisdiction are those actually in the penitentiaries in administrative positions and the superintendent and inspectors who are called upon to visit the penitentiaries and to work in connection with those staffs.
I was glad indeed to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) in regard to those particular appointments. He feels, as I do, that those men occupy positions of great risk and danger and when anything happens such as did happen in Kingston last fall or in St. Vincent de Paul, naturally, the blame rests upon the shoulders of the head of the department or the minister. The minister at the same time is not permitted to make the appointment of the officials who are to use their efforts to secure the safety of those institutions. I would not have the slightest objection to the bill being amended so as to confine it to persons actually engaged in the penitentiaries, excluding the branch at Ottawa. The important part is the institution and not the branch. I thought the bill would get a second reading without division, but we are prepared to rest on the bill as it is presented and do any amending in committee.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
On section 1-Governor in council to appoint inspectors, wardens, officiers and clerks.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In concluding the debate on the second reading of the bill, the minister referred to certain exaggerations by three hon. members regarding the report made by the superintedent re Kingston penitentiary disturbances, 1932. The language of the report speaks vividly and lucidly for itself, and I am sure the Minister of Justice could not accuse any hon. member, on whichever side of the house he might be, of indulging in exaggeration in regard to the conduct of an official of the government and of parliament and of the people of Canada who would use the language quoted by the hon. member for Quebec South. Let me quote only two lines of it as follows:
Having terminated from three to five years' service with the rank of private, which would

indicate that they had reached their limit in military advancement, and could not be expected to show a higher standard in civil life.
I am sure the minister does not agree with that statement.


Hugh Guthrie: I would not have used
that language.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Now that the governor
in council may appoint a superintendent of penitentiaries, perhaps the minister will say upon whose recommendation and in what manner he will be appointed. Is it intended to follow the regulations laid down by the Civil Service Commission as to the qualifications of a superintendent of penitentiaries, the lines of promotion, compensation, and the manner in which the appointment shall be made?


Hugh Guthrie: It will be taken from the Civil Service Act and follow the Penitentiary Act. It will be done on the recommendation of the minister of justice for the time being, whoever be may be.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: So that there will be no regard for the present qualifications?


Hugh Guthrie: Not the qualifications
under the Civil Service Act. Such qualifications would not be binding because they do not apply.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Will the minister say
what will happen in the case of superannuation? If the minister says that superannuation will go with the position, then the superintendent, being outside the superannuation law, cannot get superannuation.


Hugh Guthrie: We may have to amend the Superannuation Act.

Penitentiary Act


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Is that conducive to
uniformity of law in the service?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think it will hurt it.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I might ask the same
question as to the other officials.


Hugh Guthrie: I think they will all have to come in.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Then the whole Civil
Service Superannuation Act will have to be jamlboreed again to meet this particular purpose.


Mr. STANLEY:: I wish to say a word in
regard to General Ormond. I have no particular brief for him. I knew him in my political life in Alberta many years ago when 'he was a very strong opponent of the side to which I .belonged; he took an active part in politics and was always on the opposing side. During the election of 1930 he had the pleasure of voting against me. Politically speaking, therefore, I have no axe to grind in saying a word on his behalf. I would not want it to be understood that in voting against me in 1930 he used his position in any offensive way. Certainly no accusation of partisanship can be levelled against him. A bitter personal attack has been made on General Ormond in this house to-day. It has always seemed to me that it is not a proper practice to attack a member of the public service in this house where he has no opportunity to speak for himself, particularly when it is a matter of extracting a few words out of a report and giving them an interpretation to suit the convenience of the occasion without the man accused having the opportunity to defend himself.
When General Ormond was attached to the militia department he was highly respected by the individual private soldiers. I am speaking from what I know in the city of Calgary when General Ormond was officer commanding military district No. 13. Although we have had a number of distinguished soldiers in charge of that military district I am safe in saying that no other man who occupied that position held the respect of the individual soldiers and of the militia in Galgary and district to a higher degree than did General Ormond. As I said, I have no political axe to grind on his behalf. How he got his appointment is nothing to me, but certainly he did not get it because he belonged to the political party to which I belong. I presume his appointment came through the Civil Service Commission, as it should, because of his merit. But this I do
wish to say, that the bitter attack that has been made on him here to-day is not justified by his record in connection with the soldiers of Canada during his term of office in Calgary.


Charles Gavan Power: I have never suggested that any attack which I made on General Ormond was justified by anything other than the statements he made in his official capacity in the report submitted to parliament. As to General Ormond's conduct before he was appointed to his present position I know nothing, but I am informed that he was a good officer and that he served his country faithfully and well during the war. Now I am informed that he is a Liberal. It is too bad that he allowed his principles to go astray when he joined the government service, but apparently that is what he did, judging by the observations which he makes ;n this report. My opposition to General Ormond is based purely on the report which appears as a public document. I entirely agree with the hon. member for East Calgary that it is most unfair to attack a public official who cannot defend himself, but General Ormond took it upon himself to lay this statement before the public of Canada and to cast a slur on about six hundred thousand men who cannot defend themselves either. He used his position to cast a slur, and whatever interpretation my hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Stanley) or the Minister of Justice can give other than it was a slur on these men I am unable to understand.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) said that the thing was exaggerated. I said nothing other than was stated in the report itself. It is an official report. The Minister of Justice himself saw this report before it was presented to parliament, and I would have thought that the minister would reprimand his official for having made any such slurs in a document to be presented to the Canadian people. This is more important than perhaps it would appear. We are now placing in an official document, which is going to remain in the archives of this house and in the archives of this country, a deliberate insult on six hundred thousand of the finest flower of our manhood who went overseas. It is bad enough, heaven knows, that this session will be marked in the minds of the returned soldiers in Canada as the blackest session since the war. It is bad enough to take away their preference. It is bad enough to repudiate the most sacred of national obligations by taking away pensions from some of them, without our permitting the grossest and most exaggerated statements, statements that are false, to be made against the troops, insulting the men who served their
Penitentiary Act

country overseas. I should think it would make every soldier on the other side rise up and defend his comrades.


Mr. STEWART (Lethbridge):: I think I can safely say that since the war I have been busier looking after my own reputation and character so far as my soldier life was concerned than I have been in condemning the action and reputation of any other man serving in France. I believe it is my privilege to have known General Ormond longer than any other member in this house-some twenty-two odd years. I knew him when he was a young officer; I knew him when he served as major and adjutant of his battalion, and I also had some relationships with him when he was in command of the Ninth Infantry brigade. So I think I can speak from experience in regard to some of the things that have been said this afternoon, because I carried a rifle as a private soldier longer I believe than any other member of this house, and any remarks which might be made against the reputation of the private soldier would necessarily affect one like myself who had had some experience as a private.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Smith Stewart: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I was pointing out that it has been my privilege to have some experience as a private soldier and also to serve in other situations in the army, and as a result of such experience, I will say that a man who is a private in the army needs to have just as much initiative as, and possibly should be able to act more quickly than, a man who has heavier responsibility. If ever a man should feel entitled to hold up his head and Stick out his chest, as it were, it is after he has fulfilled his duties as a private in the ranks. Having said that, I think I may safely add that no man who occupies a responsible position in the army could properly carry out any of the objects or duties assigned to him unless he had the support and cooperation of those who were serving with him as privates, gunners and drivers.
Having been an active member of two returned soldier organizations since the war, and having spent considerable time in their club rooms, visiting them quite frequently, as a member both of the legion and of the Army and Navy Veterans, I regard it as a peculiar thing that not one word of protest has reached
fMr. Power.]
me regarding the statements made in the penitentiary report by General Ormond. Consequently I am forced to the conclusion that the returned soldiers do not place upon that report the interpretation placed upon it by some hon. members this afternoon.


Ross Wilfred Gray: You have a good imagination.


John Smith Stewart: It may be imagination, but I tell my hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Gray) that I am as closely in touch with the private soldier as he is, and not one man in the province of Alberta has sent a protest to me concerning this report.
I have known General Ormond for a great many years. He used to live in the adjacent constituency, and one thing that the Conservatives could always rely upon was that he would lead the Liberal forces against us. Consequently, as far as this appointment is concerned, I think I am safe in saying that it was made strictly by the Civil Service Commission. General Ormond has always been a close friend of mine, and I think he carried out his duties as a junior officer just as efficiently as he did those of a senior officer. In regard to the statement of the hon. member for West Lambton-I am glad to see that he is present this evening-I am sure that with his cudtomary fairness not only to members of this house but to a comrade, a returned soldier, he will not take it amiss from me if I correct the statement he made this afternoon with reference to General Ormond. It happens that General Ormond and myself were in the same division; we were moving over from France at the time. When the trouble was on at Rhyl, General Ormond was in command at Ripon, and in order to make some headway towards overcoming the trouble at Rhyl, General Ormond was sent there in command to see if he could do something to set matters right.


Ross Wilfred Gray: He was there while the riot was on.


John Smith Stewart: He arrived
there when the riot was at its height, but he was sent for from Ripon to Rhyl; consequently I think it was a great commendation of his ability as a leader.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I was going to qualify my
remark and to say that there were some riots he missed-there were several he was in-but now I do not think I will qualify it.


John Smith Stewart: 
Ross Wilfred Gray: I am certainly not reflecting
on the hon. gentleman.


John Smith Stewart: I think in
all fairness to the returned soldiers that the situation with regard to Rhyl should be explained.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I will! take it under consideration.


John Smith Stewart: I will have
to leave the hon. gentleman to follow his own course and the dictates of his own conscience. The action of the returned soldiers clearly shows that they do not place the same interpretation upon the report as that given by my hon. friend.


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: I wish to join with the speaker who has just taken his seat (Mr. Stewart (Lethbridge). I happen to know Brigadier General Ormond. I went through Rhyl, arriving there I think the day after the riot. The riot of course was due to a misunderstanding which circulated about Rhyl that British bottoms were being used to carry American troops home while the Canadian troops were left lying around the base. I well remember when General Ormond came there, I -think by airplane, and he did not take long to get the situation straightened out. I have always known him as a very fine type of citizen and a good officer, but I certainly agree, with what hon. members on the other side of the house have said in regard to that statement as to the private soldier not being qualified to hold a position as prison guard. I take that stand as one who enlisted as a private soldier and spent some two years as such in France. The point I would like cleared up by the minister is whether or not we are to take it from that statement that no man who has served in the army as a private soldier is to be considered for a position as prison guard. That is the only logical inference I can draw from the statement; if I am wrong, I hope someone will put me right. If it is -a proper inference, it would put me in a very difficult position in voting on this bill, so I hope t-h-e minister will dear it up.


Hugh Guthrie: I might clear that up at
once, Mr. Chairman. The expression which has been referred to was unfortunate, but it was used inadvertently. There is no doubt it had application to certain mien on the staff of the Kingston penitentiary, and had not and was not intended to have any general application.


Ross Wilfred Gray: There was no qualification.


Hugh Guthrie: Will the hon. member
pardon me until I giv-e my interpretation?
It was not intended to have any general application to the -men who served this country at the front. I can assure my hon. friend it will -have no application in the future.


Humphrey Mitchell: In view of the apology that has been made for the writer of this report, I think he should be asked to withdraw that statement. I believe this House of Commons should insist that that be done, that in doing so it would reflect the view of the people of this country. Because after all it is not like some observations made by members here this afternoon-it was not extempore, it was studied. Notwithstanding what the Minister of Justice has said, it reflects the studied opinion of a military officer in charge of our penitentiaries as to the inferiority of the private soldier and -his unfitness to hold a position in a penitentiary. It is not merely an offhand expression of opinion; it is in a report. It has been said that theTe has been no objection from the returned soldiers. That can be readily understood as due to the fact that this report has not received as wide circulation as it might have. I know something of the temper and outlook of the average man who served in the forces, and had this report received -the publicity it should have, in view of the statement contained therein, the government -and the minister in charge of this department would have received plenty of criticism from the returned soldiers' organizations.


Arthur Edward Ross: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be pardoned for referring for a few moments to the report with regard to what the superintendent calls the riots in the Kingston penitential. First I should like to direct attention to the fact that there is no institution known as the Kingston penitentiary; it is the Portsmouth penitentiary, but perhaps we can pardon inexperience in that regard.
My good friend who sits behind me said we were talking about a man who has no chance to reply. I am not going to attack any military man on his service; God knows we had enough to do to hold our own, and we did the best we could. But I am going to attack a man who makes a report on penitentiary riots, and I am ignoring the fact that he is a returned man. If it is not fair to criticize him in this house what recourse have those men who have been dismissed without a hearing? What can a guard do who has been dismissed by the superintendent and put on a black list so that he cannot be employed in any other department for fourteen years? W'hat can a deputy warden do, though he gave twenty-eight years service in this institution and had not a mark against him? He is
Penitentiary Act

written up in this report; he has had no ehanee to defend himself or even have a public hearing where he could say that the charges made against him, to which I am going to refer, are false? If it is unfair to attack this gentleman certainly it is unfair to these people to be dismissed without a hearing and without an opportunity to defend themselves.
In this report the superintendent of penitentiaries even went into pasrt complaints, things that did not affect him at all, and men were dismissed for those reasons without a chance to defend themselves. They discharged a messenger who had given eight years service, a man who simply went where the warden sent him. His father had been in that institution for fifty-two years; his uncle had been there for forty-three years. His grandfather had seen twenty-seven years service: that makes a total of one hundred and thirty years of service given by this family, but this man was discharged, and the reason given was that his education was deficient. What is the history of the case? The history, which is a proud one, shows that this charge is puerile. Two of the boys were educated as doctors; one was educated as a priest and the only girl in the family is the bursar of the Hotel Dieu, which is one of the largest institutions of its kind in our city. This boy went through public school; for eleven years he worked for the largest departmental institutions in Kingston, but now he is put out because of deficient education.
These poor fellows had no chance to defend themselves; they were given their papers and let go. This gentleman threatened them with instant dismissal if they dared go near a member of parliament with their complaints. When a man is dismissed from a public institution-and there have been forty or fifty in the last three or four months-where is he to go for redress if not to his member of parliament? Who else can take up these oases? For the last twenty years these men have been told that if they dared go near a member of parliament they would be dismissed instantly; that is the sort of thing that has been going on. I have no criticism of this man as a soldier; his record is good, but a3 the writer of reports on penitentiary riots certainly he has fallen down.
I had hoped that this gentleman would be fair. He knows the treatment given even a private in the army when he is charged with some misdemeanour. You cannot punish any private in the army unless you bring him before a court martial, where he can defend himself and where he will be represented by counsel. This man, however, refuses even a
TMr. Ross.]
hearing to his discharged employees. I thought the last administration was pretty bad in its treatment of the guards, but under this gentleman this administration is even worse. After hearing about 650 convicts without being able to locate the two or three leaders in the riot, this man called in the guards and swore them to secrecy so that they would not dare tell what he questioned them about. Can any fairroinded man, any British citizen in this country, imagine that sort of treatment, under which a guard is taken in and sworn to secrecy and then, three or four days later, is discharged? This is the treatment that has been given, and that is why I am protesting to-night.
This is a onesided report; it is misleading; it misrepresents and distorts the facts, and it is brutal and unfair in its treatment of these people. I am going to prove those statements. I know if the Minister of Justice or the exMinister of Justice had the facts before them something would be done, but as they say they must stand behind their officials. At the same time there should be some investigation if they are getting untrue reports. In this connection I might refer to a report filed here a year ago with regard to these brokers. They were supposed to be working, mixing cement, digging roads and ditches, and so on, but they did that work only after the question was asked in this house. I have a sworn statement here, which I should like to read:
When the brokers came to Collins Bay they were put on duty as waiters in the officers' mess-
I hope neither the Minister of Justice nor the ex-Minister of Justice will take this as personal ; I hope they will understand that it is the truth, which was not stated in the reports furnished them.
-causing the former waiters, who were perfectly satisfactory, to lose their jobs, and as a result they were put in the "bull gangs," digging and excavating. Stobie-
I hope I will be forgiven for mentioning names, but it must come out.
-was put in the officers' mess. Forlong was made secretary to the deputy warden, Young was made secretary to the chief trade instructor while Bill Smart was secretary to the chief engineer. Shutt was found a position in the general offices. Campbell was appointed librarian to look after the library, which consisted of about twelve books, his duty being to take in and give out the said books.
Now I am going to refer to the report in general, and first I will have a word to say as to the general conclusions. As a report this is not worth the paper on which it is written. After spending three or four months hearing the stories of 650 convicts and swear-

Penitentiary Act
mg the guards to secrecy, what were the conclusions arrived at by this gentleman? These are the conclusions:
1.	Insufficient supervision covering a period of not less than ten years.
Must I defend my good friend the present Minister of Justice and my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice on this charge?
2.	Insufficient and inefficient inspection covering not less than a period of ten years.
This young gallant from the west, riding through, certainly has some idea of himself.


William Duff: Young Lochinvar has come
out of the west.


Arthur Edward Ross: Why should guards be dismissed on this aeoount?
3.	Inefficient officers being retained on the staff of Kingston penitentiary.
I do not agree with that. Some may be pretty old, and this minister has dismissed some, as did also the late minister.
4.	Lack of knowledge of, and familiarity with, penitentiary rules and regulations.
I do not suppose he knew what they were when he wrote this.
5.	The desire on the part of certain long term convicts to have less rigorous rules and regulations enforced within the penitentiary.
This is a peach. If any of us were in there would he not endorse that? Just imagine!
6.	A plot or scheme on the part of certain convicts to escape from the penitentiary.
Well, 1 have never known a year when there was not a plot or something of that kind among inmates to escape from this penitentiary.
7.	Admission in the Kingston penitentiary during the month of February, 1932, of certain convicts who were especially adept in organizing and inciting disturbances against constituted authority.
WT,here else would you send such people?


Ernest Lapointe: They are bad boys.


Arthur Edward Ross: The next is:
8.	Deprivation of convicts of cigarette papers and fine cut tobacco, pipe tobacco being- an authorized issue.
9.	The large number of young and irresponsible convicts who are now confined in Kingston penitentiary, many of whom have had experience in reformatories in Canada and elsewhere.
If this is correct, it is one of the most damning things in the whole service, that boys who have been in reformatories have so soon gone to penitentiaries.
10.	The monotony of penitentiary confinement.
11.	I am also of the opinion that two or three convicts, whose identity has not been disclosed up to the present time, are the principal organizers of the outbreak.


Ernest Lapointe: He does not know who
they are.


Arthur Edward Ross: No. If he had gone to any
six guards, to any one guard in the penitentiary, he would have been told who the ringleaders were, without having to spend all this money and take up so much time. Now let us see what the complaints are which were received from these 650 convicts. Here they are:
1.	Deprivation of cigarette papers.
If that is one of the causes of the riot, they have been given this article and therefore they were not justified. He refused it and now endeavours to excuse himself by saying that one warden did not agree with that.
2.	Close-cropping of hair.
3.	Lack of recreation and amusement.
He declares that when he went there he noticed that these convicts were washed out, but he was not there very long before he found that there was more life in them than anyone could imagine.
4.	Insufficient open air exercise.
5.	Lack of newspapers and magazines.
These fellows did not only want the Globe and the Mail; they wanted their own home papers supplied them.
6.	Insufficient lighting in cells.
7.	Harsh treatment by officers.
8.	Compulsory church attendance.
That must be true, because since the riot there has never been a church parade.
9.	Insufficient medical treatment.
10.	Insufficient dental treatment.
Who was to blame? He was going to fire both the doctor and the dentist but he found that headquarters had something to do with it.
11.	Lack of toilet articles, combs and mirrors-
And cosmetics too, I suppose.
12.	Punishments improperly awarded for breach of rules.
13.	More frequent letters to and from convicts.
14.	Increased number of visits to convicts.
15.	Lack of paroles.
16.	Objection to steam-cooked food and monotony of prison diet.
Now these things have all been given them, and yet these complaints are set down' as leading up to the trouble. Let me now refer to something else. As hon. members know, there is a female prison up there which cost $750,000. There is a high wall around it, as high as the wall around the other prison, and outside of that there is a formidable wire
Penitentiary Act

fence. I said to the architect one day, "What is the idea of this fence? Are the women better climbers?'' He said, "No; that is to keep those outside from coming in. There is too much of a demand to get into the penitentiary to-day." And why not? Think of the treatment the prisoners get at Christmas. During the Christmas season, when there were so many hungry people in this country, and many of those who were doing their best to obey the law were without food and clothing, these fellows had a magnificent Christmas dinner and after that dinner each one was given his little Christmas stocking containing a pound of mixed candy, a pound of chocolate, a pound of mixed nuts, a pound of grapes and oranges, bananas and so forth. These fellows who had no regard for law received this treatment; and more than that to each one was sent a Christmas card, wishing him a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Now we are told that we must not say anything about this man who cannot answer; yet in that report, I say, there is an attack on Inspector Smith which is most brutal and unBritish. Nothing can surpass it except the treatment which the Iroquois gave their victims, when they could pour boiling water over them. Nothing, I say, could surpass the treatment this man has given Inspector Smith. Remember, he is only an inspector, acting warden, and not at all responsible; yet this is the way he is treated; the knife is thrust in and turned round and round so as to kill him. The idea is to destroy him for good. What did Smith do? This report states that Smith put himself in the hands of the convicts. He followed the procedure laid down by the regulations. These troubles have always been treated by either the deputy warden or the warden going down and talking to the convicts. According to the report, Smith was a terrible coward and did many things he should not have done. I do not know Inspector Smith because I never had more than a couple of dozen words with him, but I like to see British fair plaj7. He was doing just what had always been done; he went down to meet these fellows after having been sent for by the deputy warden. AVhat happened when he talked to these men? They went back to their cells. Has similar action been taken in other cases? I should like to quote from Recollections of a Prison Governor by Lieutenant Colonel C. E. F. Rich, as follows:
It 'was at this stage of the affair that I, trembling in every limb with blue funk, sailed into the middle of a seething and blasphemous mass of convicts armed with sticks and stones, all only waiting for one of their number to
TMr. Stanley.]
throw a brick or strike a blow, when the fat would immediately have been in the fire. However, I managed somehow to conceal the fear I felt, and, with a flow of language which I flatter myself was equal to anything that even my practised charges could muster, I bluffed the assemblage to such good purpose that they actually got into some sort of order.
If Smith had not settled this trouble as he did he might have been criticized. This report goes on to heap further indignities upon Smith by saying that he obligated the superintendent. Such a statement is unfair. The only thing Inspector Smith promised was that these men would get a hearing. The report states that the officials were all in a funk, that they were amazed and dazed and did not know what they were doing. What amazed them? This thing had been going on for three days and they had been under the greatest stress and strain. This man came in and started to find fault and began to use language such as "God damn your soul."


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am using the words exactly as they were said. If they are not true, they can be refuted, but they will not be refuted by the men who were there and heard them. Similar language was used to the clerks and everybody else.


Ernest Lapointe: Was he addressing convicts or guards?


Arthur Edward Ross: He never went near the convicts.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who was that,
Ormond? '


Arthur Edward Ross: It was Ormond, and that was the language he used. Then he goes on and reviles the deputy warden, a man with twenty-eight years' of service. He charges him with two or three things, such as being down in the yard' with a shotgun on his shoulder. Anything to heap indignity upon these fellows. These men have never been given a chance to reply to these charges. He states that the deputy warden changed this man Behan without orders. The deputy warden absolutely denies this charge, but he cannot get a hearing.
Mr. Chairman, I am treating this matter with some heat, but these people are my constituents. This matter does not affect any other hon. member in this house. These questions will be answered and the answer will be given at election time. I am going to see that these men are given a hearing and permitted to state their case. The report states that these things date back for ten years. Every year we have had rumours of

Penitentiary Act
prospective riots but the men in charge have handled them in such a manner that they never occurred. To accomplish this result they adopted the procedure now condemned by the superintendent. I have never been a worshipper or follower of Hughes or Ponsford but let me say that no riots occurred under Hughes and Ponsford. How can he say that these things date back ten years? On reading the files I find that the ages of the men brought up for trial were twenty years, twenty-one years, twenty-two years and so on. Where were those boys ten years ago? On their mother's knees. What is the use of talking of ten years ago?
He then goes on to speak of firearms. Apparently he does not know that in the interests of economy the government took off the armourer and these men had to take care of the firearms themselves. I am not interested in the communists or other bad elements in the penitentiaries, but I predict that if firearms are supplied freely and these men are instructed to fire just as quickly as they can pull the bolt and load, there is going to be trouble just as sure as day follows night. When it does occur it will be very difficult to explain, because public opinion is against the taking of life by firearms. The superintendent puts all these things down as causes for the trouble, but he has not struck the real cause. In my opinion the real cause of the trouble has been the failure to fill vacant positions. The treasury board say that they do not feel like paying out the money to fill these positions. As far back as the regime of the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), Ponsford was kept for years without a deputy warden and a chief inspector. It is quite true there were acting officials, but an acting official has not the power and authority of one who is duly appointed. There were no outbreaks until this man came along, and from then on there was a continuous trail of them. I blame the superintendent for these riots, and I charge him with being the cause.


George Douglass Stanley: The new superintendent?


Arthur Edward Ross: The hon. member does not know anything about penitentiaries. When he rises to ask a question, I will answer it. When the superintendent made his first visit to that institution, there were six or seven men there who had been connected with the riot in the stone gang. Those fellows were very bad actors and they were being kept in isolation. He released all but one. Most of them have been put down now by his own official and representative as the ringleaders in the last riot. Under an experienced person those men
would not have been released until a better disposition of their case had been made. Fortunately one man not named was not released; if he had been there would have been bloodshed, because he has not yet taken part in anything without blood being shed.
When the superintendent arrived on the occasion of the second riot, he was to have heard those convicts, but instead of doing that, I am told that he spent his time searching the criminal code for some provision under which he could prosecute the mayor of the city of Kingston. Surely no government official has any right to go into a man's private residence and quarrel with him; nor has one the right to go into a private citizen's residence at midnight, though this was not done in this case, but in another. The citizens of this country have some rights.
Mr. BEAUB1EN: Did the superintendent do that?


Arthur Edward Ross: The superintendent visited the mayor. These prisoners were promised a hearing, but though time was valuable then, several days elapsed without any hearing. They asked that a deputation be permitted to see him, but he refused. The deputy warden kept warning him that these men were getting restless, out of hand, and could not be controlled. Then he did hear one or two of them separately, and the outbreak occurred. No one but himself was responsible for the second riot.
I pointed out to the officials at the top that there was danger ahead; that this penitentiary was so crowded that men were sleeping in the corridors. At the time ninety men were sleeping in the corridors with all possible means of contact and nothing yet has been done in the way of lessening that evil. There is something at the bottom of all this trouble and I have repeatedly pointed out what I think it is. Let me illustrate: On one occasion a boy fifteen years of age and wearing knee breeches, was brought into the penitentiary accompanied by a six-footer. What was the trouble? This man had arrived at the boy's home on the bay of Quinte. The boy knew no crime, no wrong. It is true that his father was not all he should have been, but the boy had never gone wrong. He had a dog and a sleigh, and the man coaxed him one day to hitch his dog to the sleigh and come along with him. The boy escorted the man across the bay to a summer camp and some things were stolen from it. Along with this man that fifteen year old boy was sent to Portsmouth penitentiary for two or three years. This boy did not know that he had done wrong, and when he arrived at the institution in those knee breeches, he burst into tears. What was his
Penitentiary Act

reason? "I am afraid", he said, "that nobody will feed my dog." That boy knew no crime until he got into that penitentiary; now he is there on his fourth commitment and he stands to-day as one of the ringleaders of this riot. Who is responsible for such a situation?


George Douglass Stanley: The present superintendent.


Mr.   BOSS@: Don't be so smart. If the hon. member cannot talk sense, let him be silent. Who is responsible for a condition of that kind? That boy is now languishing in the Kingston gaol waiting to be tried as one of the ringleaders. Let us get down to the basic causes and stop these young boys from being sent to penitentiaries, and in that way the number of criminals will be lessened. Once a boy enters this institution, if he is allowed to finish his sentence, he is done. This superintendent comes in without experience and writes up the causes of riots, when the penitentiaries are filled to overflowing with boys of seventeen, eighteen, twenty, twenty-two years of age; these are boys who are first sent to a reformatory and then, if they escape from there, they are sent to the penitentiary. From then on they are finished; they are in the professional class. Such facts mean more to me than the swallowing of a wishy-washy report such as the one before us. Had this superintendent waited until he had gotten his feet and learned conditions, I am satisfied he would have written a report far different from this one. But no matter what my good friends behind me think, this is my constituency; I am responsible for it; hon. members do not understand conditions, and if they knew the actions of the superintendent when he visited the penitentiary; if they knew other things that should be brought out into the open, they would come to the conclusion, just as I have, that he is not a fit and proper person for this position.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not expect in the committee stage of this bill we were going to. go into the question of the penitentiary riots, but there are a few statements of my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Ross) which I can answer without the papers which I should otherwise have had before me. I have been aware for some time that the hon. member for Kingston was not very complimentary to the gentleman who was selected and put into office on August 1 of last year as Superintendent of Penitentiaries of the Dominion of Canada. I am just as fully aware from my hon. friend himself that he was just as unfavourably impressed by the superintendent who for ten years preceded the present

appointee. Perhaps some day we may get a superintendent exactly in accordance with the ideas of my hon. friend, but it is evident we did not succeed in the choice of the late superintendent and we have not, or the Civil Service Commission has not succeeded in selecting a suitable man in the present instance, according to the views of the hon. member for Kingston.
My hon. friend mentioned a serious affair which occurred in the Portsmouth penitentiary in the month of August, 1931. A very serious plot, involving some six or seven dangerous prisoners, was discovered through one of those implicated getting cold feet, as the saying is in the penitentiary, and informing the guards or the warden of what was contemplated for the following day. The prisoners were all immediately locked up; a search was made; certain knives and other dangerous weapons were discovered and the plot was frustrated. That was a year before the present superintendent took office. Under the regime of former Warden Ponsford and Superintendent Hughes these seven or eight prisoners were confined in isolated cells. When the new superintendent took office and made his first visit to the penitentiary some time in August last year he made inquiry as to who occupied the punishment cells, and was informed in regard to these seven or eight prisoners and the length of time they had been in punishment cells. I understand that after consultation with the officials the superintendent ordered the release of six or seven of these prisoners, leaving only one man, known in that prison as two-gun O'Brien, in the special confinement cells. My hon. friend the member for Kingston suggests that the release of these seven or eight prisoners by the superintendent after they had been over a year in confinement precipitated the riot in Kingston penitentiary. All I can tell my friend is that his suggestion is absurd.
He has criticized the superintendent's report on the happenings at Kingston made after a full investigation of the facts. There is no doubt that the trouble had been brewing for a long time. Matters in regard to the penitentiary had not been very satisfactory for a considerable time before I took office. I know that when I did take office there was constant friction as between Warden Ponsford and Superintendent Hughes, and there was a lineup of partisans and sympathizers among the officers of the penitentiary supporting, on the one side, the superintendent, and on the other side, the warden. I had deputations on behalf of the warden, and my hon. friend from Kingston came in with him, and I had also

Penitentiary Act
deputations on behalf of the superintendent, and had to hear his story. I came to the conclusion that there was a condition existing there which could only be cured by the removal of somebody, and thereupon I asked for the retirement of both the superintendent and warden. I think my hon. friend from Kingston approved my action in that regard.
It became necessary then to appoint a new warden and a new superintendent, and instructions wenjt forward to the Civil Service Commission regarding these appointments. Pending the appointment of a warden, one of the inspectors was sent from Ottawa to take charge of the Kingston penitentiary. The acting warden was Inspector Smith. I am inclined to think, having regard to all the circumstances, that Acting Warden Smith acted the part of a brave man during that riot.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: I believe he was in an exceedingly dangerous position, and I sympathize with him in the predicament in which he found himself. But where the superintendent has found that acting warden Smith was not quite as efficient as he should have been lies for the most part in the fact that as early as the twenty-eighth day of July preceding the riots, which took place in October, a document was found in that prison, clearly the work of a fairly well educated man, practically laying out a scheme for a revolt. That document had evidently been to some extent compiled from the book written by ex-warden Lawes of Sing Sing entitled Twenty Thousand Years in Sing Sing. There are passages in that document which are almost word for word from the Sing Sing book. The document was eight or (ten pages long, and its concluding paragraph was, "This is copy number so and so. Pass it on to friends you can trust."
Acting warden Smith, I think, rather carelessly placed that document on his file in his office, and left iit there and took no action in regard to it. That was in July. Later, in the month of September, through information obtained from prisoners in writing, the acting warden again received information that there was going to be serious trouble in the very near future, giving him particulars of what was going to happen, giving him information that had been passed out of the prison by certain guards, giving him notice of where, outside influence was at work on behalf of the prisoners and for the purpose of a disturbance, giving him details of a plot whereby
the walls were to be scaled by scaling ladders brought up on the river side, and various matters of that kind. Again, acting warden Smith took no action in the matter. He simply filed the document and awaited events. I agree with the superintendent-


Ross Wilfred Gray: What the minister has j ust recited is not contained in the report.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not sure, but I can produce the documents, the evidence of acting warden Smith in regard to the statement I have made. *


Ross Wilfred Gray: I have no doubt, but it should have been in the report.


Hugh Guthrie: I read the documents and I know what I am talking about. Then came the disturbance in the month of October. My hon. friend from Kingston, in a very emphatic way, announces that in his opinion Superintendent Ormond was the man who had caused these riots. The idea is, I think, thoroughly ridiculous.
I might mention some other points that I just caught in passing. My hon. friend from Kingston seems to think that no guard should be removed unless he is given what he called a trial similar to that of a court martial. Now the law of this country, and I think of every British country, in respect to all servants of the crown will be found in chapter 1 of the revised statutes of Canada. Every servant of the crown is appointed and1 removable at pleasure. That applies to every member of the service. It is possible, without giving any reasons whatever, to retire any member of the civil service. If he is retired for cause, if he is retired for misconduct of any kind, he loses his rights; he forfeits his pension and anything that is payable to him by way of retiring allowance. But if he is retired as in the cases mentioned by my hon. friend from Kingston, for the greater efficiency of the service, he loses no rights; he gets his retiring allowance. That is the way in which the officials spoken of by my hon. friend were retired.
There were reasons given in every case. I live here in Ottawa. I occupy an office in the East block. I have paid officers to advise me in regard to matters of this kind. Reports come to me from the warden and from the superintendent, detailing the offences, if offences there be, or detailing the reasons why such and such a guard should be removed or retired. These men know the situation. They are paid to do so. They have examined the case and made a report, sometimes a very lengthy one. I have to study this report, and I have to come to the best conclusion I can on the evidence.
Penitentiary Act

My hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Reid) this afternoon brought up the case of some guards out in New Westminster. I have time and time again gone over a long file in connection with each of these cases. All the dismissals to which he refers took place before I was minister. They were all approved by my predecessor. My hon. friend asks me now to override the position which the former officers and the former Minister of Justice took. I have not been able to do so. Similarly, in the case of the guards who have been discharged at Kingston, in every instance there was a reason, and a substantial reason. Many of the guards were most leniently dealt with when they were retired for the greater efficiency of the service. I do not know that it is necessary for me to put upon the pages of Hansard the evidence and reports, I do not intend to do so, nor do I intend to mention the names. But complaint after complaint having come to me from my hon. friend from Kingston, I have diligently gone over these reports, I have questioned the superintendent personally in regard to them, and the only conclusion I can come to is that I should follow the recommendations that he has made, and for the greater efficiency of the service I have concurred in the recommendation that these guards be retired. None of the guards is known to me personally; not a single member of the staff of the Kingston penitentiary is known to me personally. I do not suppose any of them were known to the superintendent until recently because he never was in the penitentiary until August of last year. But on his advice I have approved these retirements. In no case under the Civil Service Act, as far as I know, is a man entitled to trial by court martial when he is relieved from office as suggested by the hon. member for Kingston. I grant you that under that act if a man is charged with political partisanship the custom has been established that he shall not be removed until he has had a fair investigation. But such is not the law that applies in the case of the penitentiaries of this country. No man has a right to a formal trial who is appointed only "at the pleasure of His Majesty," as the saying is.
My hon. friend from Kingston takes a strong exception to the report made by the superintendent-


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: At that point may I ask whether the dismissed guards themselves know what the cause of dismissal is?


Hugh Guthrie: They say they did not but I have not found any who have come to see me who did not know. I had one in to see

me the day before yesterday; he knew why he was dismissed. If the case my hon. friend refers to is just ai case of "a piece of paper"-
I am not sure it is, but he says a certain guard was dismissed on account of a piece of paper -all I can say without giving names, is that the piece of paper constituted a very serious piece of evidence.


Arthur Edward Ross: May I say it is not the case? The hon. gentleman knows the case; I went to him-


Hugh Guthrie: Oh, that is the old case?


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: That was years ago-I was only a boy when that happened; I do not remember anything about it. That was fourteen or fifteen years ago, long before my time.


Arthur Edward Ross: And, now, fourteen years after, the man is refused a job.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not speaking of that. I refer to the case where one of the most notorious convicts in the penitentiary, when questioned by the superintendent, would not answer candidly until he knew whether there was a letter for him in the warden's office. One of the guards who was sent to find out came back; a large sheet of paper with the word "no", written in letters four or five inches high, was turned towards the prisoner who could see what was on it, and he immediately changed his evidence. The letter had not arrived. The prisoner was expecting something. The guard was let out. That is only one of the circumstances connected with his dismissal. I thought when my hon. friend from Kingston was speaking, that this was the case he referred to as "a piece of paper." The other I fancy is a case that took place fourteen or fifteen years ago, and while I have read the report made upon it I do not think it lies in my power to change the finding at this late date.
Another thing my hon, friend waxed rather merry upon is the conclusion of this report. He pointed out that everything the prisoners asked has now been granted. Of course that is an exaggeration, a few requests were granted. The question of cigarette papers arose in this way: up until 1923 prisoners had cigarette papers in the penitentiaries. For some reason they were then cut off, and it has always been a grievance among prisoners in all the penitentiaries that while they were allowed pipes and tobacco they were not allowed cigarette papers. They got their supply of tobacco and would make cigarettes with the usual toilet paper that is supplied. Last spring complaints became quite common in regard to the toilet

Penitentiary Act
paper; it was porous, they said, and would not smoke as a cigarette. From that time on complaint after complaint was made about the want of cigarette papers. During his first visit to the penitentiary in August, 1931, the superintendent discussed with acting warden Smith that question of cigarette papers. He was inclined to recommend it; he consulted the various wardens in regard to it, and I believe all but one approved an allowance of cigarette papers. One did not approve. The matter had not been decided but was about to be decided when the first riot took place in Kingston. Now prisoners are allowed a moderate supply of cigarette papers. That was the first complaint of nearly all the prisoners who were examined. There were over seven, hundred prisoners whose evidence I have read, and ninety per cent of them, placed the want of cigarette papers as their first complaint.
After cigarette papers I think the largest number of complaints would be on the question of cropping the hair, a reference to which caused so much merriment in the chamber. Prisoners object to cropping as an indignity. They complain that when their relatives come to see them it is a great indignity that they have to appear with a close crop. In some prisons in England now they allow the military hair cut, and the military hair cut is now permitted in the penitentiaries of Canada, in order to remove what the prisoners describe as a great indignity.
Lack of recreation and amusement was a common complaint, I am inclined to think that there was some ground for complaint in that respect. Exercise and recreation hours were not utilized as they could have been in what I would call useful exercises. The new superintendent has taken that matter up and has increased the time allowance for exercise and the method of exercise, and the reports I get from the wardens throughout Canada are that there has been a great deal of improvement in regard to the exercise, and far less complaint.
Lack of newspapers and magazines has been an outstanding grievance. In nearly all countries, as far as I know, the rule prohibiting newspapers in prisons prevails, although in Sing Sing and some American prisons these are permitted. There was recommendation by a commission in this country some ten years ago that weekly newspapers be permitted in limited numbers. That recommendation was never adopted. Magazines are permitted, certain classes of books are permitted. One great complaint is that the magazines when given to the prisoners have been mutilated by the
censor, and all the interesting articles, they say, have been cut out. Newspapers have not yet been granted.
Insufficient lighting in the cells-I think there was a real grievance. I think they had only what they call a ten candle power lamp light. We have increased that to twenty-five so that in the long hours of darkness during the winter particularly they will have a longer period for reading.
Harsh treatment by officers-there were complaints from many prisoners in that respect, and we tried to verify them as well as we could. Many of them, I have no doubt, were exaggerated, and some fictitious, but others may have some foundation in fact.
Compulsory church attendance is alleged as a grievance by probably fifty per cent of those who gave evidence or made complaints to the superintendent. One of the inspectors said that compulsory church attendance was really part of the punishment and should be continued. But a number of prisoners take strong exception to church attendance and say they will refuse to go, that they do not enjoy the services, that they do them no good, that they do not believe in what they hear. Compulsory church attendance, particularly in the Protestant chapel, has been a serious question not only in Kingston but in other penitentiaries.
Insufficient medical and dental treatment are complaints that occur in the statements of many prisoners. Some complained of lack of toilet articles, combs and mirrors and the like; some even wanted a canteen or shop where they could buy these articles. We have now allowed them each a comb; as we are allowing the hair to grow, of course a comb will be necessary. Mirrors are not allowed on account of the danger of the glass, and there are many complaints on this score. Others want knives and forks, but these are not allowed on account of the danger in the use of them by dangerous men. All these are very serious complaints on the part of the prisoners. They do not think they are laughing matters.
More frequent letters-we have allowed a letter a month instead of every two months. We have doubled the number of visits from one every two months to one a month by relatives or close friends. Lack of paroles has been complained of by eight or ten of the seven hundred; the objection to steam cooked food is a common complaint, and the monotony of prison diet is another. While these may appear rather trivial to us they are very serious matters with the prisoners concerned. They look upon them very differently, and these constitute the chief com-
Penitentiary Act

plaints which were made by prisoners in regard to Kingston penitentiary. I think these comprise almost all the complaints that were said to have caused the riot, and as will be seen we have righted some of these grievances, but many others we have had to refuse.
The other details as to the treatment of prisoners at Kingston or related by the hon. member for Kingston caused some merriment in the house. For the last twenty-five years there has been a per diem allowance in every penitentiary in Canada for Christmas entertainment, and no one understands this better than my hon. friend from Kingston. If Christmas cards were sent to these prisoners I fancy it must have been done by some outside party; certainly so far as my knowledge goes they were not sent by the department or by any official of the department. There are people who do such things, particularly ait Christmas time, some furnish gramophones, some furnish radios and so on. This surely exhibits a true Christmas spirit. During the few days at Christmas there is some relaxation of strict prison discipline; there is and has been for the last twenty-five years a per diem allowance in every penitentiary in this country to provide extra rations at Christmas time. My hon. friend from Kingston cannot blame this ancient custom on the new warden or the new superintendent.
I do not know that there are any other matters I need mention at the present time. I had expected most of these questions to be raised when the estimates came up, when I might have been more fully prepared. Perhaps just here I might say a word with regard to the brokers at Collins Bay. These brokers were sent to Collins Bay under Superintendent Hughes and acting warden Jackson, who was at Collins Bay; it was not done under the present superintendent at all. For some reason or other Collins Bay has been known as a preferred class penitentiary. That name was adopted by Superintendent Hughes with no authority whatever except his own before I became minister; Collins Bay appears in the report of the superintendent and in the debates of the House of Commons under the name "preferred class penitentiary." They had a sign painted and put up at the institution, to which I see some reference has been made in the newspapers, and of course I am blamed both for the selection of the name and the erection of the sign. But this was all done before my time, and when I heard that the name "preferred class' had been adopted both at Collins Bay and at St. Vincent de Paul, I concluded that such was not a very appropriate name; I ordered the name

changed and the sign taken down, and this was done a long time ago. The new name is Collins Bay penitentiary, and the so-called preferred class at St. Vincent de Paul is now the Laval penitentiary; neither is now known as a preferred class penitentiary. They were simply construction camps, and Collins Bay is in large measure a construction camp still. We are building it with prison labour, and it will not be completed for some years. There are no cells at Collins Bay such as we have in other penitentiaries; there are wire entanglements instead of the stone walls of other prisons. When a man's conduct in Kingston penitentiary has been approved by the warden he may be selected for transfer to Collins Bay if his services can be utilized there as a stone mason, a carpenter, a trench digger, a clerk or anything else. The warden submits a list of names to the superintendent and the superintendent makes out a list of names and numbers and nothing else and submits this list to the minister. I have seen 115 names on one list and 160 names on another. Then, on the warrant signed by the minister, these prisoners are transferred. The minister knows nothing about the individual prisoners; the warden and the superintendent make the selection. These men are then transferred from Kingston to Collins Bay. Of course they are looked upon as more or less of the peaceful or trusty class rather than the dangerous class of prisoner because it is not so easy to care for them at Collins Bay; there are many more opportunities for escape. When they get to Collins Bay they are put at some useful work.
Inspector Jackson was the acting warden at Collins Bay, and my hon. friend from Kingston has alleged that Jackson allowed these brokers privileges that were not allowed other prisoners. I have heard that charge made before by my hon. friend from Kingston, and I made diligent inquiry of Inspector Jackson. I am inclined to think, however, that I did not succeed in getting all the truth as a result of the inquiries I made, and subsequently the time came when in my judgment Inspector Jackson should be removed, so for the greater efficiency of the service he was asked to retire.
I do not know the particulars as to the cases cited by my hon. friend from Kingston with regard to these brokers, but I have been assured that the hours of labour, the clothing, the food, the privileges and the like are precisely the same in both penitentiaries. I do know this, that in looking over the documents in connection with the transfers from Kingston to Collins Bay, in one list of eighteen who were to be transferred sixteen of the prisoners asked to be left at Kingston, and the reason given was that the work was too hard at

Penitentiary Act
Collins Bay. Other individual cases have come to my notice of prisoners who, finding their names set down for transfer, have asked to be retained at Kingston. Many untrue and nonsensical stories have been published in the newspapers with regard to the easy work and the good times enjoyed by the brokers and other prisoners at Collins Bay. Such tales were absolutely unwarranted. There may have been lapses; I do not say that I am fully satisfied with the result of the inquiries I have made in respect of the treatment of the brokers and their families by the then acting warden of the prison, and I came to the conclusion that it would be better for the penitentiary service if I asked acting warden Jackson to retire, and I did so.
When the estimates come up I will have all the papers before me and can go more fully into any questions that may be asked. I did not think these questions would arise on this bill, but perhaps it is just as well that these matters should be brought up now; it may save time later.
Now I should like to say just a word with regard to juvenile offenders. If I understood my hon. friend from Kingston aright he said there was a fifteen year old boy in knee breeches, a first offender, who had been sentenced to Kingston. That must have been done by one of the judges or magistrates of this country; it was not done by the superintendent of penitentiaries or the minister. If the boy was a first offender he should not have been sent to Kingston at all; our law provides otherwise. If he was sent there as a first offender he should have been removed at once on complaint to the attorney general at Toronto, who has available prisons, homes and reformatories for the purpose of looking after youths under sixteen years of age. I must say, however, that after a lad is sixteen and has been sent to a reformatory or a provincial prison and associates with the ordinary run of prisoners, he very often gets into serious crime before he is eighteen years of age, so he may be sent to Kingston for a fairly long term. We have lads at Portsmouth now who are serving their fourth and fifth terms but who are not yet twenty years of age. It is not safe to put them in ordinary reformatories; they escape at once, and at a very early age they become what are called hardened criminals.
It is a very difficult problem to deal with boys of that kind. The idea behind the construction of the new prisons at Collins Bay and St. Vincent de Paul is that when they are completed we will be able to segregate, so far as possible, the youthful prisoners from the 53719-232
old offenders. However, one great difficulty will be that many of the youthful prisoners are themselves old offenders. In the prosecutions which are to take place at Kingston in connection with the recent riots it is quite true, as my hon. friend from Kingston says, that a large proportion of the offenders are juvenile prisoners; I do not mean youths, but men under thirty years of age. There are to be twenty-nine prisoners prosecuted in connection with that riot. They will come up in June at the court of general session of the peace. That is done because one of the terms of capitulation, as it is called, when the riot was at its height and Warden Smith's life was actually threatened, was the promise, in reply to the question whether they would get a fair trial if they went back to work and stopped the row, that they would receive such a trial; and acting warden Smith's idea of their language was that they meant a trial by the courts of the country and not a trial by the warden's court in the penitentiary. It is for that reason in particular that we are having the men prosecuted in the courts of the land at the general sessions of the peace.
I may observe how similar the conditions were in the riots in Dartmoor in England and in Kingston here. In Dartmoor the same disturbance seems to have arisen, the same actions were taken by the prisoners, with the same results so far as damage is concerned; in each case one man was injured and there was a property damage of about S3,000. In Dartmoor there were thirty-one prosecutions of ringleaders and thirty convictions. I do not know how the cases will proceed here, but there are twenty-nine to be prosecuted in Kingston in June next. In St. Vincent de Paul the situation, from the point of view of damage, was much more serious than in Kingston, the loss being estimated at about $50,000, whereas in Kingston it is about $3,000. In St. Vincent de Paul there were fewer convicts engaged in the disturbance, but some elements of the trouble were more serious than in Kingston; they set fire to the premises, using gasoline, and deliberately cut the hose to prevent anyone putting out the fire, and they waved the red flag, calling upon the convicts to follow the revolution. There are only twelve prosecutions before the criminal courts in Quebec. In Dorchester, where the affair was minor as compared with the other two, there are only four or five prosecutions, and the property damage there was slight. Without any loss of life we have come through these three affairs and while the property damage in Montreal has been serious, in the other two places it was negligible. Considering the over-

Penitentiary Act

crowding in the penitentiaries, and considering other questions in regard to the guards whom we have had, we have been very fortunate in getting out of the difficulty as well as we have.
There may have been mistakes, and some of the staff may be open to serious criticism, but I am satisfied that the criticism levelled by my hon. friend from Kingston at the new superintendent is not justified. I think the new superintendent has done exceptionally well during the eight or nine months he has been in charge. All the reports I get from the penitentiary are daily more and more satisfactory, chiefly on account of the reforms that have been put into force by Superintendent Ormond. He will gain by experience; about that there is no doubt. Any man in such a position would. But he is diligent, careful and painstaking, and will prove a very successful superintendent in the end.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think the minister has been
fair in his reply, but there is one thing I want to point- out and that is that when differences of opinion did exist such as existed when the matter was brought to his notice in regard to the brokers, the least he might have done was to go and see for hi-mse-lf. But he never went. Simply swallowing the report of an official is what I complain of. I never meant that he was responsible for the brokers' state; I do not think for one moment he would stand for such a thing. But I did refer to tih-e matter because it had been reported to me and he admits now that he did not make any investigation himself. I am positive of the truth of the statement made to me; I know that the conditions indicated in that sworn statement are absolutely true.
As to the cigarette papers, if I understood the minister rightly he said that cigarette papers were once given. That ds not so.


Hugh Guthrie: I have been so informed; up to 1923 they were allowed.


Arthur Edward Ross: Neither cigarettes nor tobacco came in until 1922 or 1923. This followed the investigation of the commission, to whose report no attention whatever was given. At that time there were many oomplaints, and the great thing that these guards complain of today is what is called trafficking in the penitentiary. We all condemn it. The man who goes out there not knowing what he is going for, has this tacked on his back, that he was trafficking.
I did not ask for a court -martial, although I believe it is a fair method. The private in the army is the king's servant just as

much as a guard in a penitentiary, and he is given a fair hearing; he is given a chance to deny any charge that is made against him. The minister refers to the proceeding in connection with the paper that has been mentioned. A certain guard in the penitentiary was fireman, and a woman came along with a paper bearing an address on it.


Hugh Guthrie: This is the old case my
hon. friend is referring to.


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes, and I think I have the
right to refer to it.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, certainly.


Arthur Edward Ross: It shows how unfair the whole thing is. This piece of paper which this woman carried had an address written on it. The address was that of this guard, who had not been there for six months. He refused to have anything to do with the matter and the woman went away. She came back. This piece of paper was taken, and the only thing we have is the evidence of the man Duncan and some others, stool pigeons, spies and spotters in the -penitentiary. There were affidavits from these fellows, but this man never knew what he was put out for. He found later, however, that this piece of paper was taken by the mounted police to a handwriting expert, who said it was his writing. All we did was to ask for that piece of paper. If the writing on it was the fireman's, then we have nothing more to say; but the man denies the whole thing and the circumstances bear him out. They show that he 'had not for over six months been at this place. We asked for this piece of paper, and if it does not bear out this -man's story, a man who has lost his job after fourteen years, we have nothing further to say. I submit that it was only the fair and the British thing to do, to produce the paper, notwithstanding what clause 1 has to say.
This is what these men complain of. They are stamped as men who -have been trafficking, and in this instance the man absolutely denies it; he declares that -he can prove conclusively that the charge against him is false. But he cannot get a chance to establish his innocence. It seems to me that if they have evidence then the man should be told what it is.


Hugh Guthrie: The man has been told;
I told him personally.


Arthur Edward Ross: In a great many cases the
man goes to the warden and the warden says he knows nothing about it. A man was dismissed the other day and the warden of the penitentiary offered to give him the highest

Penitentiary Act
kind of recommendation, because the dismissal had been made without his sanction.
I think the committee will see that I actually have some reason for the position I am taking in this matter. This paper which was found is used as something against Smith. It was called Barbarism in Civilization, and the figure 26 appeared upon it. It was not as if this paper had been circulating around; they got it and nothing like it has appeared since. There was nothing at all to that, but it is pasted all over this report as being something awful. There is no doubt that it was the work of a communist or someone of that kind; I do not dispute that, but it should not be taken as sufficient cause for the dismissal of an inspector who was doing his duty to the best of his ability.
I am not going to discuss this matter any further. In our part of the country we feel that a great deal of damage has been done and considerable expense will be incurred by the community. The rioting on the second day could have been prevented. A member of the permanent forces wanted to go in and stop it but his offer was refused by the superintendent. I have been in touch with this penitentiary for many years. I came down here and complained about the treatment given to Warden Ponsford, which I thought was very unfair. He was told that if he would apply for two months' leave of absence he would be put back on at the time of the elections. When his leave came through he found it was for three months and no one could be found who would admit having changed it. He was practically thrown out. Ponsford was no friend of mine; I never got and never asked a favour of him. I thought the treatment unfair and I came down here to protest. I will say for the minister that he received us and I think, after all, used perhaps the best judgment in the settlement of that case. However, the treatment Ponsford received was unfair and I came down here to fight for him.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me to be quite obvious that this committee cannot form a clear conclusion from the details which have been presented during this debate. I submit that from the statements made by the minister and the charges levelled by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross), we would be warranted in urging upon the government the absolute necessity of the appointment of an independent commission to investigate the whole question of our treatment of criminals. I agree very largely with the hon. member for Kingston in his criticism of the report upon the riots at 53719-2324
Kingston penitentiary. It seems to me that the attitude of the superintendent is simply that of adopting repressive measures. He stated that there was only occasional foot and arm drill, that twice a year each guard fired eight shots and that during the annual drill a certain number of guards were put through some sort of perfunctory fire drill. He states further that shortly after the end of the late war a fair sprinkling of guards were brought into the service who had had military training of some type or other. The attention of the committee has been drawn to the rather peculiar statement of the superintendent with regard to the inability of the ordinary soldier to become an efficient guard. I do not want to go into that matter, but I would say that a soldier's training, whether he be a private or an officer, is not necessarily such as to fit him to be a guard or other official in a penal institution. Had I the time I would have liked to submit some memoranda which have come to me-copies have been sent to the minister -dealing with the whole question of the treatment of criminals. One was from the Canadian Prisoners' Welfare Association, another from the Social Service Council of Ontario, and so on.
I think it is high time that we in Canada followed a line of procedure similar to that followed in Great Britain and many countries of Europe. In those countries a very careful investigation has been made not only of the details of the administration of the penitentiaries but of the general question of penology. Following these investigations in Great Britain and elsewhere, men have been appointed to take charge of these institutions who had a good knowledge of sociology, psychology and penology. These men have a wide knowledge of the type of treatment that had proved to be the best in other institutions, and they have brought into effect certain new types of treatment which have proved very effective.
I do not think that any hon. member \Vho has a boy of his own could listen to the instance quoted by the hon. member for Kingston of a fifteen year old lad who had become a hardened criminal without feeling that that statement alone was sufficient to warrant our asking for a royal commission to inquire into the whole situation. The minister himself has had to admit that after all these years we have not as yet succeeded in segregating the youthful offenders. It is high time we had a thorough and far-reaching investigation of these matters. The minister has admitted also that there is considerable overcrowding. There has not been a very great increase in our population in reoent
3G70
Penitentiary Act

years and this overcrowding would seem to suggest that our mode of treating criminals has not been very effective-we have not been able to reform very many and we are creating more. We are taldng little trouble to discover the causes of crime and to eliminate those causes. In this scientific age we ought not to continue simply to use the old repressive measures. A commission should be appointed to be composed of men of high ideals possessing a wide experience of such matters. The riots ait Kingston, although serious enough are a comparatively small matter when considered in the light of the big problem involved. This commission should investigate the whole matter and report to this house as to whait steps should be taken in the future to solve this great problem.
Some hon. members may remember the commission set up years ago to investigate Kingston penitentiary. I do not think the recommendations made by that commission were followed in any regard. I had the greatest difficulty some months ago in securing a copy of their report. They made some recommendations but everything was forgotten. Some years ago the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) in two successive sessions made the plea that prisoners, especially married prisoners, should be paid for work performed. That resolution was adopted by the house, but practically nothing has been done in the matter.
These men are unable to defend themselves and every precaution should be taken to ensure that their interests are safeguarded. It is not a question of this or that little thing, such as cigarette papers or the providing of some toilet necessity; the trouble goes a great deal deeper than that. Moreover I do not believe those causes which are assigned by the men could, under the conditions under which the investigation was made, reveal the real reasons for the riot. These real reasons could be ascertained only by men of scientific training and with some knowledge of the general character of criminals of this type. I would plead with the minister and the government that now the report has been presented on the immediate question of riots in the penitentiaries, the government would give consideration to the appointment of a commission that before the next session of the house would bring in a report which would place the treatment of criminals on an altogether different basis.


Ernest Lapointe: I intend to discuss certain features of the report of General Ormond

when the estimates of the penitentiaries come up for discussion. I may say immediately, however, that I agree with the hon. member for Kingston City as to the character of the report, which is certainly a very remarkable one. The superintendent's conclusions are:
1. Insufficient supervision covering a period of not less than ten years.
_ 2. Insufficient and inefficient inspection covering not less than a period of ten years.
I have not been able to find out how General Ormond has come to these two conclusions. They are based on nothing that can be ascertained anywhere in the report or in the documents which have been submitted to us. They seem to be only the yielding to the temptation of blaming somebody else-[DOT] those who preceded him. I have not the pleasure of being acquainted with General Ormond, but he seems to have been rather unfortunate. After he was appointed last August he paid three visits, one to each of the three penitentiaries, Dorchester, St. Vincent de Paul and Portsmouth. He has been unfortunate because riots took place in those three penitentiaries to which he had paid visits and where he had interviewed convicts. My information was to the effect that he lacked experience of penal institutions, and if my information is correct, he interviewed the convicts in the absence of the wardens or other officers, something which is never done. Apparently he promised the convicts many of the things for which they had been asking, such as cigarette papers and so on, and when the promises were not implemented, the riots took place.
Let me tell the Minister of Justice that, like the hon. member for Kingston City, I have no reason to take up the cudgels for either General Hughes or Warden Ponsford. They were not the appointees of the administration of which I was a member. I found both of them there when we took office. It is true, as the Minister of Justice has said, there was no love wasted between the two, as I saw, but together they made a pretty good team so far as the administration of the penitentiary was concerned, and as the hon. member for Kingston City has said, there was in Kingston under Ponsford and General Hughes no outbreak which could be called a riot. It was when this wonder from Calgary took charge of the penitentiary that the riots broke out. I shall have something else to say about the matter when the estimates are taken up.
May I say also that three or four years ago a commission was appointed by some states of the United States to study prison regula-

Penitentiary Act
tions and conditions in Canada. They visited and spent some time at Portsmouth penitentiary and elsewhere, and their report was that it was the best managed institution they had visited in either the United States or elsewhere, so it was not as bad as is depicted. I have sympathy for the Minister of Justice in the administration of that branch of his department. I agree with him that the minister cannot himself ascertain which man should be placed in a position as guard or otherwise, and has to trust to a large extent to the reports of the superintendent and the wardens, the men who are on the spot and who are responsible for peace and ordeT in the penitentiaries. The minister must have as officers men whom he trusts, and apparently he has great confidence in his present superintendent. I hope his confidence is not ill placed and that the new superintendent will prove his ability further than by that famous report of his.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I cannot let clause one, dealing with the governor in council appointing the superintendent, pass without replying briefly to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Stewart) who a few moments ago stated that because he or the government had not received protests from the Canadian Legion, it ill became those of us who sat in the House of Commons to raise the question that was raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) with respect to the wording of the report made by General Ormond. The hon. member for Quebec South this afternoon quoted a protest from the Canadian Legion at Kingston. I desire to place on record a protest presented to the government by the Ottawa branch of the legion, one of the strongest of the branches, composed of many returned soldiers, and one which has perhaps done more to relieve distress in its own city than has any other branch. When the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley) attempts to defend this report and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) tries to defend the appointment of this particular gentleman as superintendent of penitentiaries-


Hugh Guthrie: I defend his conduct, not his appointment. I did not appoint him.


Ross Wilfred Gray: In any event it is interesting to note that one of the minister's appointees, the superintendent of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, not only recommended this gentleman as superintendent but was one of those who sat in judgment on the appointment to the office. I mention this in passing because I think it is worthy of note. Moreover, when the hon. member for East Calgary states that this gentleman is a Liberal, it is interesting to note that he was recommended first by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, second by the Hon. Mr. MacPherson, Attorney General for Saskatchewan, and third by the Hon. F. G. Taylor, formerly leader of the Conservative party in Manitoba and recently appointed by the present Minister of Justice to the Court of King's Bench of that province. I leave it to the house as to the Liberal leanings of the gentleman appointed.
With respect to the protest by the Ottawa branch of the legion, which I desire to place on record, may I say that they first of all passed a resolution protesting against taking out from the operation of the Civil Service Act this branch of the service. Their second resolution was as follows:
That the Ottawa branch of the Canadian Legion desires to record its strong resentment and disapproval of the tenor of the remarks contained in the report recently submitted by the superintendent of penitentiaries, touching upon the qualities of the private soldier who served during the great war, considering such remarks as uncalled for reflection upon the rank and file who served in the Canadian expeditionary forces.
I leave that expression of the views of the Ottawa branch of the legion with the hon. member for Lethbridge.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: This bill
has to do with taking the appointment of the administrative staff of the penitentiaries from under the operation of the Civil Service Act and placing it with the governor in council. I do not propose now to debate the question of 'the advisability or otherwise of so doing. Most of the discussion late this afternoon and this evening has rather centred around an attack upon or severe criticism of the present superintendent of penitentiaries.
Let me say in passing that the purpose of the bill is to remove from under the operation of the Civil Service Act these appointments. It is contended by the sponsor of the bill, the hon.. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), that the duties of these servants peculiarly unfit them for appointment by the Civil Service 'Commission. If the criticisms which 'have been levelled against the superintendent of penitentiaries are to be carried through to their logical conclusion, it would be an argument against at least that appointment being made under the Civil Service Commission, but I do not think we can generalize from individual cases.
The hon, member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray) has made reference to the contention
Penitentiary Act

that General Ormond's was not a political appointment inasmuch as he was a Liberal appointed by a Conservative administration. He endeavoured to cast doubt upon that by indicating who had recommended him. I know of my own knowledge, coming from the same province as General Ormond-he comes from the town of Portage la Prairie, and I know his family very well-that he and his family have been Liberals for generations. I do not say that in disparagement at all. It is a fact, however, that General Ormond and his family are Liberals. His appointment was made certainly not for any political consideration, but simply because under the system of appointments under the Civil Service Commission he answered the advertisement, and having had a very distinguished war record undoubtedly that recommended him to the commission, and he received the appointment.
Leaving that, I wish to deal with one other matter around which the discussion has largely centred, and that is the remarks of General Ormond as contained in his report as superintendent of penitentiaries. So that the matter may be clearly on the record I wish to read the words to which reference has been made. They appear on page 8 of his report under the heading, Training of Guards. He says:
At the present time there are many guards who had little or no service that would recommend them to be penitentiary or prison guards, mostly having terminated from three to five years' service with the rank of private, which would indicate that they had reached their limit in military advancement, and could not be expected to show a higher standard in civil life.
I do not propose to defend such language on the pant of the superintendent of penitentiaries. My experience tells me that such language is ill-considered, unfair and indefensible. I am glad to associate myself with hon. members on both sides of the 'house who have taken this opportunity to register a protest against such language being incorporated into a report that beoomes part of the records of this house. I think that that point was particularly stressed by the hon. member for Quebec South, and I entirely endorse his sentiments. Knowing General Ormond's record as a soldier, and it was a magnificent record, knowing his splendid record of service and that he must have come into close contact with thousands upon thousands of privates in the army, it is to me incomprehensible that such a statement should represent his considered opinion. However, it is in his report, and we must deal with it as such. 
This statement of General Ormond will not stand even a cursory examination. Note what he says. He is speaking of guards who are in the penitentiary, and says that the records show that they have had from three to five years in the army as privates, and he draws this conclusion:
-mostly having terminated from three to five years' service with the rank of private, which would indicate that they had reached their limit in military advancement.
The Canadian corps was an army of over five hundred thousand men. They could not all be generals, they could not all be colonels or majors or captains or lieutenants. In the very nature of things only a small percentage of them could be officers.


Humphrey Mitchell: Somebody had to do the fighting.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: As my hon. friend says, somebody had to do the fighting, and so in the nature of things hundreds of thousands of them served during the war for years, and came back as privates. Is it to be concluded from that that they were lacking in mentality, or lacking in those abilities that would fit them to be guards in the penitentiaries? The denial of such a position is to be seen in this house. There are hon. members of this house-I do not need to name them-who served in the ranks as privates, and remained privates. One is a minister of the crown. You find them taking their place in civil life, in the professions, in- the business life of this country, in every walk of life today. So that suggestion was entirely uncalled for.
Who were the men who served in the ranks of the army? Who were the five hundred thousand odd? Some of them are members who sit in this house to-day. Many of them were the sons of men who are sitting in this house to-night. They were the sons of all classes of people in this country. That was the magnificent thing about not only the Canadian corps but the British army. The sons of some of the most privileged people were among the first to go. That was so in the motherland and it was so in this country. Who were these boys in the army? The western plains sent a battalion known as the university battalion. They were boys of eighteen and twenty, who stopped their university courses and signed up-the flower of this country filled with idealism of youth, to all of whom life was still "A perfumed wonder."
It is not for me to disparage officers, but as far as intellect is concerned, or those

Penitentiary Act
qualities which make for good citizenship, you can take a cross section of the army and in every class you will find most of them pretty good stuff, some medium, and an odd one poor. But in the main those who know best will say they were simply magnificent. That is true of the private in the ranks, the platoon lieutenant, the captain, the major, and the commanding officer. Mutual confidence and initiative was the keynote of the success of the Canadian corps in France. It was the same with the padres who were sent to us in France; most of them were splendid fellows, some not quite so good; I will say the privates stood up just as well as they did. So I join with other hon. members who have protested in this house against these remarks in the report, or that they should go into the archives of parliament.
In conclusion I want to say that the most charitable view I can take of the language of General Ormond is that it was used thoughtlessly, and possibly under provocation in relation to one or two particular individuals who had not measured up to the standard. That is the only reason I can think of; I have no purpose here to defend him. I submit there is no necessity for reading into the record, as my hon. friend from West Lambton did, the protests of some soldiers' organizations; not only the rank and file of the Canadian corps some 500,000 strong, but every fairminded citizen of Canada protests against such language. Privates got advancement from the ranks, officers got advancement-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. I think it is high time the committee came back to article 1 of this bill.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Well I will just conclude, Mr. Chairman. I want to say that the successes of which the people of Canada read with pride were attributable to all ranks and particularly to the brains of the privates and the energy and initiative they showed in tight places. Time and time again, in the absence of officers and N.C.O.'s, privates took charge and saved many a difficult situation. During the last hundred days when town after town fell to the Canadian corps it was a common thing in France and Flanders to see at noonday in a liberated city or town or village the mayor and public officials gathered on the steps of the hotel de ville holding a thanksgiving celebration, thanking the general of the brigade for deliverance. But let me sum it up in this way: that before such an occasion that town had to be delivered,
never at noonday in one of those delivered villages did a general in gold lace or red cap or tabs accept the plaudits of the multitude but earlier on that day or some other day it was the rank and file of the army who fought through the wire and gas and made that celebration possible.


Mr. JEAN:: The other day in discussing the resolution I asked the Minister of Justice if the act would provide for a bilingual superintendent and officers as far as the province of Quebec was concerned. The answer of the minister was: I should say yes. I have read over the bill which is now before us and do not see any such provision in it.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not intend to say that the act would so provide. I said that would be carried out in the administration of the act. I do not think it is customary to put such a provision in an act of parliament.


Joseph Jean: I think it would be desirable to put it in.


Hugh Guthrie: Since the committee rose at six o'clock I have considered the suggestions made by my hon. friend from Quebec East and I have to some extent recast the bill to accord therewith. The bill as prepared would give to the governor in council the right to appoint the superintendent, the inspectors and the staffs of the penitentiaries, and all other officers of the penitentiary branch would remain as now under the Civil Service Commission. It does not require much amendment; I can explain the amendments all at once and then move them separately. It will require the words "and three inspectors" in line 9 after the word "penitentiaries." Then in section 2, line 17, we strike out the word "inspectors," strike out lines 20, 21 and 22 altogether and insert in lieu thereof: "who are engaged in and about the various penitentiaries and are upon the respective penitentiary staffs thereof." To make it clear that this applies only to the limited number that would be inspectors, superintendents, guards and wardens, we are putting in a clause as clause 3 of section 3: "All other officers, clerks and employees of the penitentiary branch of the Department of Justice shall be appointed and paid under the provisions of the Civil Service Act." As we are on clause 1, I would move: That section 1 be amended by adding in line 9 after the word "penitentiaries" the words "and three inspectors of penitentiaries," and that the words "an officer" be changed to "officers."
Penitentiary Act


Eugène Fiset: Perhaps I may call the attention of the minister to the fact that he is cancelling clause 20 of the present bill with regard to these inspectors and leaving it open to the governor in council.


Hugh Guthrie: We are repealing clause 20 which provides for the appointment of three inspectors, and allowing the inspectors to be appointed under clause 14.


Eugène Fiset: But in your amendment you are limiting the number of inspectors to three.


Hugh Guthrie: So it is in section 20.


Eugène Fiset: But if you look at section 2 of the present bill repealing clause 20 you find that instead of providing for only three inspectors you have an unlimited number.


Hugh Guthrie: No, it says "three
inspectors." Three inspectors is the maximum.


Alan Webster Neill: Then you must change the word "him" in the last line also.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, the word "him" in the last line will have to be changed to "them".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-Governor in council to appoint inspectors, wardens, officers and clerks.
Hugh Guthrie: This section is to be amended by striking out the word "inspectors" in lines 17 and 23.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: The next amendment-


Mr. RALSTON:: I should like to say a word in connection with this section. I oppose it for the same reason that I opposed the amendment last year, which permitted something like 3,000 postmasters to be taken out from under the Civil Service Act. My reason is that this does away with the preference to ex-service men.
I will detain the committee for just a moment to remind hon. gentlemen of all that this parliament and this dominion have done in the way of endeavouring to provide employment for ex-service men.. The Civil Service Act was passed away back in 1918, and in that act a preference was provided for exservice men in connection with government positions. Order in council PC. 1053 was passed exempting certain skilled and unskilled labourers, but even in those cases the preference was retained. I think it is to the credit of this country that from 1920 to 1924 between 
69 per cent and 79 per cent of all the appointments to the public service were filled by exservice men. We did not only give them the right to apply; we went further and paid out the money of this country for the purpose of training ex-service mm in order that they might fill civil service positions. By order in council P.C. 2944, of August 31, 1931, we provided for special training for ex-service men in order to fit them for these positions. We were only doing what all the belligerent countries, especially those who were on the side of the allies, had done; that is, providing for the employment of ex-service men in the public service.
We even went further and aided schemes put forward by civilian agencies in this country. I remember particularly the Toronto rehabilitation scheme put forward by the citizens of Toronto, by which they assisted ex-service men to get positions in civil life. This country contributed a substantial amount by way of assistance to that scheme, particularly in order that employers, who took on disabled ex-service men, might be able to give them a specified; living wage. From the treasury of this country we contributed sufficient for that purpose. Then we .provided for vocational training; hon. members who were in this house before I came here will remember the consideration given that question by committees of this house in 1921, 1922 and 1923. Then we sent delegates to the international labour bureau in order to find out what was being done in other countries, in an endeavour to adopt some uniform system of giving employment to ex-service men. Our representatives there reported that the unanimous conclusion had been reached that ex-service men were entitled to the benefit of the assistance of the country in order to secure employment.
Then the 1921 parliamentary committee approved the vetcraft shops and recommended their establishment in conjunction with the Red Cross. The Red Cross established various agencies all across this country, and they were assisted by the Dominion government. As a matter of fact we paid 85 per cent of the capital expenditures and 75 per cent of the deficits in connection with those Red Cross agencies. Then we had provincial employment agencies; we put a handicap section there and we paid out money in that direction also in order to provide employment for ex-service men. The employment service and the handicap sections were united, I think in 1923, that the dominion might better cooperate with the provinces in order to give the ex-service men what was regarded as their due. In addition it was found that in some other countries the

Penitentiary Act
voluntary schemes were not working out, and in some countries acts were actually passed not only providing that ex-service men should be given a preference in connection with civil service positions but requiring employers to hire these men up to a certain percentage of their establishments. That happened in France, and to a certain extent that scheme also was adopted in Germany, Italy, Austria, Poland and the kingdom of the Serbs and Croats. In each of these countries provision was made whereby a certain percentage of ex-service men would be entitled to a first preference in civilian employment, not only in government positions.
I give this recital only to remind the committee of what has been done in that regard in other countries as well as in Canada. Now I find that at one fell swoop this bill proposes to do away with the preference given ex-service men employed in positions in the penitentiaries, and as I understand my hon. friend the Minister of Justice he says the reason is that the men who are disabled or handicapped are entitled to the preference, as well as the men who have had service overseas and are physically fit. I point out to the minister and to the committee that this is no answer to the contention we are making. What we say is that these men must qualify for the position for which they are applying. No one even suggests putting in a man who is not qualified for the job. We suggest that when men pass an examination and are found to be qualified the ex-service men should be given the first preference. What exception can be taken to that? That is the provision in the Civil Service Act; it has been there all along, and why that principle cannot be perpetuated is beyond me. The reason appears to be that General Ormond has made a report, which I submit is not to his credit as a soldier. I know of his service overseas; I know he was a gallant soldier, but I cannot understand the mental processes of a man who would make a report such as that made in connection with the penitentiaries, in which it is said that because a man had from three to five years of service in the ranks as a private only he is not fitted to be a guard in a penitentiary. I think there must be something wrong with his mentality, and I submit in the strongest possible terms that this is a reflection on men who have served this country faithfully and well. General Ormond knows as well as anyone knows that overseas privates were not simply led by their officers. Privates held important and dangerous posts; privates led raids; privates showed initiative and judgment. I have known privates to take command of platoons and do magnificent work, and it is because of that fact, we feel, that our Canadian forces made such a record overseas. It was not simply because of the officers; it was because of the men in the ranks, who had the initiative, the courage, the spirit, the understanding and the leadership. I say that this report is a reflection on the men who went in the ranks, many of whom did not care to take the stars of an officer; it is a reflection which these men do not deserve-far from it- and I submit that it brings no credit whatever to the gentleman who made it.
It is my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that nothing could better qualify a man for the position of guard than the fact that he did serve overseas for from three to five years. He was doing guard duty all that time. Who held the outposts? Who did the guard duty day after day and night after night, but the privates who were given most important and dangerous missions and posts? I submit that this very fact does qualify them, and I come back to this point: If these men are qualified it ill behooves this government to take away from them the preference laid down for them in the statute since 1918. No one is asking that they shall be given positions unless they are qualified, but I submit in the strongest possible terms that this section is a direct confiscation of rights which have long since been given these men, rights to which they are entitled, which have been recognized by other countries, which have been recognized in civilian industries, and which this parliament should hesitate before taking away from the returned men.


Hugh Guthrie: I thought I made it clear this afternoon that if returned soldiers were qualified, not suffering from physical incapacity, I would welcome a clause in the bii to give them preference. My hon. friend need not have engaged in his rather heated remarks on the subject. General Ormond's report had nothing to do with the suggestion, and if my hon. friend from West Lambton will draft a clause I shall be glad to consider it. I must say it is difficult, having regard to the fact that the men must have physical qualifications; and if they are pensioners suffering from some physical disability one can hardly ask them to be guards. The other question is with regard to the age limit; thirty-five is the limit. A man who was twenty-six or twenty-seven at the end of the war would now be pretty-well advanced in years. In the case of returned soldiers we extend it to forty, so that now any returned soldier up to forty can become a guard. I do not know that for the position of guard I would increase the age
Penitentiary Act

limit above forty because a man must be hale, hearty and husky to fill the position. If my hon. friend from Weist Lambtan can agree with me on a clause I shall be only too glad to include it in the bill and see that the preference is maintained.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I appreciate the remarks of
the minister. Unfortunately I was not present tins afternoon when he spoke and I may have been the cause of misleading my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth in that regard. I do not think I misled him to any great extent, however. I am glad to hear what the minister has just said, and if this is not the proper place for the clause he proposes, perhaps we can let the section stand.


Hugh Guthrie: I desire to get in certain amendments, but we will reserve a place for the new section.


Ross Wilfred Gray: That will be all right.


Hugh Guthrie: These amendments are
technical. I have submitted them to my hon. friend for Quebec East and he has approved of them. The first amendment is:
That section 2 be amended by striking out lines 20, 21 and 22 and by inserting in lieu thereof:
"who are engaged in and about the various penitentiaries and are upon the respective staffs thereof."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I wish to congratulate
the minister on having limited the effect of the bill so far as this section is concerned. What is the meaning of "and other administrative or executive officers" in view of the fact that the clerical staff and others have been confined to the operation of the Civil Service Act?


Hugh Guthrie: We have all sorts of
instructors, keepers and so on, and that is the class to whom it refers.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Those within the penitentiary?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, on its staff. The
next amendment is to subsection 2, to strike out the words "clerks and employees" in line 24.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: There is another amendment to subsection 2, to add the words "administrative or executive" after the word "other" in line 23.


James Layton Ralston: Does this section stand?


Hugh Guthrie: As amended.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend suggested some amendment to preserve the ex-service man's preference.


Hugh Guthrie: After section 4, or anywhere in the bill, so that it will be a general section to apply to the whole bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Appointment of guards, trade instructors, and subordinate officers.
Charles Gavan Power: Is there any amendment
here?


Hugh Guthrie: I have an amendment to propose, that subsection 3 be added to section 3 in the following words:
"All other officers, clerks and employees of the penitentiary branch of the Department of Justice shall be appointed and paid under the provisions of the Civil Service Act."


Charles Gavan Power: Section 3 reads:
The Said act is further amended by inserting after section twenty thereof the following section:-
20A (1) The superintendent may, upon the recommendation of the warden, appoint such guards, trade instructors and other subordinate officers and employees as are necessary for the service of any of the penitentiaries. '
Perhaps the meaning of the amendment to clause 2 was not made quite clear, but as I understand it, that clause covers all these officers.
Mr.LAPOINTE: Oh, no.


Charles Gavan Power: Clause 2 reads:
The governor in council may appoint such inspectors, wardens, deputy wardens and other administrative or executive officers as are required for the proper administration and management of the penitentiaries.
And all other officers in and around the building, or words to that effect. If that is the case, that clause would cover guards, trade instructors and subordinate officers.


Hugh Guthrie: It would depend upon the meaning you put upon the words "executive and administrative officers."


Charles Gavan Power: The minister added something to the clause referring to all other officers.


Hugh Guthrie: The words added were:
-who are engaged in and about the various penitentiaries and are upon the respective staffs thereof.


Charles Gavan Power: Would not that include
guards, trade instructors and other subordinate officers?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.

Penitentiary Act


Charles Gavan Power: Under section 2 the governor in council appoints those officers and under section 3 the superintendent appoints them.


Hugh Guthrie: The intention is that the governor in council shall appoint the wardens and deputy wardens, and other administrative or executive officers which would include accountants and people of that kind. Then we come down to the minor officials, the guards, the instructors, the keepers and so on.


Charles Gavan Power: As I understood the amendment it would cover guards, trade instructors and other subordinate officers.


Hugh Guthrie: We have left out guards, keepers and instructors until this clause.


Charles Gavan Power: Would the minister read section 2 as amended?


Hugh Guthrie: It would read:
The governor in council may appoint such inspectors, wardens, deputy wardens and other administrative or executive officers as are required for the proper administration and management of the penitentiaries, and who are engaged in and about the various penitentiaries and are upon the respective staffs thereof.


Charles Gavan Power: I had misunderstood the
amendment. In connection with the appointments to be made under section 3, the minister gave an assurance to the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt) during the course of the debate that in making appointments under this section preference would be given to returned soldiers. General Ormond has stated distinctly that he does not consider returned soldiers as being fit for these jobs and yet this section gives him the power to make these appointments. How can the minister assure the committee that the superintendent will do anything else but what he would be expected to do in the face of that statement?


Hugh Guthrie: We will draw up a clause to cover that.


Charles Gavan Power: Under the bill, the superintendent would have the discretion.


Hugh Guthrie: Upon the recommendation of the warden.


Charles Gavan Power: The minister knows that
if the superintendent is any good at all there is no clause which can prevent him from exercising some discretion. This gentleman has entered upon this position apparently sincerely convinced that returned soldiers who have been privates would not be fitted to be penitentiary guards. I do not think the minister would be fair to the superintendent
by endeavouring to circumscribe his activities by telling him that he must appoint so and so.


Hugh Guthrie: I would not be telling
him, the law would be telling him.


Charles Gavan Power: I suggest that this section
should be changed and the power of appointment taken away from the superintendent. He is bound to follow the recommendations he made in his report.


Hugh Guthrie: No, he is not; that is
nonsense. I think any reasonable man would understand that report to refer to the individuals with whom he was dealing in Kingston. I have agreed to put in a clause which will make it obligatory that first preference be given to returned soldiers.


Charles Gavan Power: I would suggest that instead of leaving this to the superintendent, the minister should take the right to make appointments by order in council.


Hugh Guthrie: I thought that that
would be objected to.


Charles Gavan Power: I would rather place the
responsibility upon the government than upon a superintendent who has expressed himself in such a manner. The minister knows my views upon the Civil Service Act, so what is the use of camouflaging behind wardens and superintendents-let the government take the responsibility and appoint these men.


Hugh Guthrie: I would refer to the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police which I have the honour of administering for the time being. All appointments to this force are made without consultation with me. All appointments are made by General MacBrien and his staff and the political element does not enter into the appointments. If it is seriously thought that these appointments should be made by the governor in council, I am willing to amend the bill in that way. However, I think a clause to safeguard the rights of the soldier would be sufficient.


Charles Gavan Power: There is a great difference
between enlistments for the mounted police force and appointments to a civil service job. After the discussion we have heard with reference to General Ormond I think the majority of the members of this committee would rather trust the government to make such appointments and see that the returned soldier got a preference. If this principle was not carried out we would have the opportunity of pointing out to the government wherein it was remiss, whereas otherwise there may be a hiding behind the superintendent.
Penitentiary Act


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: There is a vast difference between making appointments to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to the staffs of the penitentiaries. In all my twelve years of experience in government work I never heard General MacBrien or his predecessor make such a derogatory statement in connection with returned men as that made by General Ormond. It would toe extremely difficult to frame a clause to give preference to the returned men and expect a superintendent who has made the statements he has to enforce that clause. This gentleman has made certain statements regarding the returned men and if we tell him that he must enforce a clause in a certain way, we are putting the whole act in jeopardy. Some other means ought to be devised of enforcing this addict somebody else other than the general administer the act.


Mr. BURY:: Much of the criticism that
has been offered and many of the suggestions that have been made refer not to a bill intended to be enacted into law but to an appointment that happens to have been made to the position of superintendent of penitentiaries. Surely the principle is a more vital matter than the particular appointment which some hon. members are criticizing. That was the very argument that was earlier used in regard to this bill, the force of which the Minister of Justice recognized by making changes in the wording of certain sections of the bill. I suggest that the committee is really trying to draft the bill on a wrong principle.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Departmental staff.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Should clause 4 not be struck out?


Hugh Guthrie: No, it repeals section 23
of the Penitentiary Act which now has no effect because we have added the words "all other officers".


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-No increase of gratuity if compensation payable.
Hugh Guthrie: That is just to prevent
double compensation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.

On section 8-No gratuity payable under Civil Service Act.
Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: This afternoon on the
bill to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act there was a provision that time served by men in the South African war would count. That is only proper. I note in clause 7 this provision:
But the amount of the gratuity which may be paid under this act to any such officer on retirement from the service shall be computed in respect only of the period of his service down to the date on which he became a contributor under either of the acts aforementioned
I dlo not quite grasp this, but I would not want to be taken as consenting to the limitation of any particular length of service. If a man has had prior service, that, as in the case of the other act, ought to be taken into account.


Hugh Guthrie: This provision is only to prevent a claim for double gratuity or retirement allowance.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: But his time should count just as it did in the other case.


Hugh Guthrie: Clause 8 takes away any claim under the Civil Service Act and gives them a claim under this act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: If the hon. member for West Lambton will come to my office in the morning, if convenient to him, I should like to draft that clause so that we may put it in the bill to-morrow. I shall try to have one drafted and see if we cannot agree.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Tuesday, April 4, 1933