1941-02-27

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Befcates
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 27, 1941.

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

Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: What amount of United States exchange was provided by Canada in each of the years 1938, 1939 and 1940 for the payment of-(a) interest on investments in Canada held by investors outside of Canada; (b) dividends earned in Canada and paid to non-residents?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: (a)	Interest payments in terms of Canadian dollars on Canadian bonds and debentures held by non-residents:
Total to non-residents-1938, $139 million; 1939, $136 million; 1940, not yet available.
To residents of the United States-1938, $84 million; 1939, $84 million; 1940, not yet available.
(b)	Dividend payments in terms of Canadian dollars paid to non-residents by Canadian companies:
Total to non-residents-1938, $176 million; 1939, $174 million; 1940, not yet available.
To residents of the United States-1938, $141 million; 1939, $138 million; 1940, not yet available.


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES-PURCHASE OF AEROPLANES
Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	How many aeroplanes have been added to the Trans-Canada Air Lines since December 31, 1939?
2.	What was the total cost?
3.	Where were they purchased?
4.	How many of the aeroplanes were airliners?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Six.
2.	Total cost, including radio, $925,316.85, of which sum $260,398.62 represents duty and sales tax paid to the Canadian government.
3.	United States.
4.	All six are Lockheed' "Lodestar" 14-passenger transport aeroplanes.


RENTAL OF PROPERTY IN SAINT JOHN, N.B.
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Has the government rented the Golden Ball Garage on the corner of Union and Sydney streets in the city of Saint John?
2.	If so. from whom was it rented?
3.	(a) Did it rent the whole building? (b) If not, how much of it?
4.	For how long a period?
5.	What rent does it pay?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	A portion of the building has been occupied for the purpose of ordnance services and the terms of occupancy are under negotiation.
2.	See answer to No. 1. General Realty Co., Ltd., Saint John, N.B., are understood to be the owners.
3.	See answer to No. 1. The portion occupied is four floors, comprising 55,000 sq. ft.
4.	See answer to No. 1. The period for which required will probably be six months.
5.	See answer to No. 1.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-SELECTION BOARDS
Mr. COCKERAM:: 1. Who are the members of the Senior Selection Board of the Department of National
Defence?
2. Who are the members of the Junior Selection Board of the Department of National Defence?
3.	What are their qualifications for this important position?
4.	Have they the power to override recommendations made by district officers commanding?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	The Chief of the General Staff, the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General, the Master-General of Ordnance.
2.	The Director of Staff Duties, the Director of Military Training, the Director of Personal Services, the Director of Organization.

Questions

3.	Qualified by their training, experience and the qualifications which they possess for and the responsibilities attaching to their respective appointments.
4.	All recommendations received from district officers commanding and other sources are placed on a staff list. The committees consider this list and, based on all round qualifications, submit nominations therefrom for consideration and approval of higher authority.


WEYBURN, SASK., CENSUS COMMISSIONER
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: 1.	Who has been named census commissioner for the federal constituency of Weyburn?
2.	By whom was he recommended?
3.	Is he a great war veteran?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	D. J. Mitchell, Weyburn.
2.	By the Minister of Trade and Commerce after consultation with his colleague the minister from Saskatchewan.
3.	He is an ex-service man.


GASPE AND MAGDALEN ISLANDS CENSUS OFFICERS
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Who recommended to the Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce Messrs. Terrence Pigeon of Gaspe, and Louis-Marie Keable of Ste-Anne-des-Monts, as chief census officers for the counties of Gasp6 and Magdalen islands, respectively?
2.	What are the dates of these recommendations?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	The Minister of Trade and Commerce recommended to the Dominion Statistician that Terrence Pigeon of Gaspe and Louis-Marie Keable of Ste-Anne-des-Monts, be appointed chief census officers for the counties of Gaspe and Magdalen islands respectively, after consultation with his colleagues in the cabinet from the province of Quebec.
2.	December 27, 1940.


PORK AND POTATOES-PRICES TO PRODUCERS
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What was the average price for pork paid to the producer in each month in 1939, 1940, and 1941 to date?
2.	What was the average price for potatoes paid to the producer during the same periods?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Hogs: Weighted average prices at all markets, 100 lbs.

	1939	1940
January 	.... SS.94	$8.79February 	.... 9.23	8.79March 	.... 9.21	8.79April 	.... 8.55	828May 	.... 8.33	7.73June 	.... 8.81	7.65July	.... 8.84	7.82August 	.... 7.86	8.01September	.... 8.64	8.57October	.... 8.39	11.56*November	.... 8.48	10.63December	.... 8.62	10.55
From October, 1940, prices quoted are for dressed weight.
2. Weighted average price received by producers for potatoes per 100 pounds.
Crop year
August, 1938, to July, 1939	 69 cents
August, 1939, to July, 1940	 1.13 cents
August, 1940, to December, 1940...	79 cents



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many employees have been added to the public service of Canada since the outbreak of war?
2.	Of these how many are (a) permanent employees, (b) temporary employees?
3.	Of these how many were appointed (a) by the civil service commission, (b) under order in council?


FOREIGN EXCHANGE-VEGETABLE OILS
Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	How many dollars United States exchange were issued to shortening and soap manufacturers for the purchase of vegetable oils in the calendar year 1940?
2.	What quantity of vegetable oil mentioned in the first question was imported into Canada?


ALLOWANCES TO DEPUTY MINISTERS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Are any of the deputy ministers in receipt of a per diem allowance or expense account in addition to salary?
2.	If so, who, and what is the amount per day?


AID TO MATAPEDIA-MATANE, QUE., FISHERMEN
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has the government, directly or indirectly, during 1939 or 1940, made any grants in kind or in cash to the needy fishermen of the county of Matapedia-Matane?
2.	If so, who was in charge of the distribution and what kind of grants were made?

Defence of Canada-Special Committee
3.	Through the agency of what merchants, and for what amounts in each ease, was the distribution made?
4.	What are the names and the amounts paid in each case to the fishermen of Grosses-Roches, Ste-Felieite, Matane, Riviere Blanche, Baie-des-Sables, Les Boules, Metic, Grand Metis and Ste. Flavie?
5.	What are the names of the fishermen in each of the parishes aforesaid who received deficiency payments through the medium of the salt fish board during the years 1939 and 1940, and what amount was paid in each case?
6.	What was the total amount paid by the salt fish board, and by the government, to the fishermen of the above county during the said years ?


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-REGINA EMPLOYEES
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	How many office employees are there in the city of Regina under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act?
2.	What are their names, home addresses, positions, salaries and expenses, respectively?
3.	How many have been employed under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act since the 1st of July last, (a) in field service; (b) inspectors,
(c)	supervisors; and what are the names, home addresses and salaries and expenses, respectively, of these persons?


THETFORD MINES, QUE., MILITARY TRAINING CAMP
Mr. LAFONTAINE:: 1.	During the year 1940 were any requests made to the government for the establishment of a military training camp at Thetford Mines, county of Megantic-Frontenae?
2.	If so, by whom were these requests made, when, and for what reasons were they not granted?



DEFENCE OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved1:
Whereas order in council P.C. 2483 was passed under the authority of the War Measures Act on the 3rd September, 1939, making regulations known as the defence of Canada regulations;
And whereas the said regulations have been amended from time to time;
And whereas by order in council P.C. 4750 of the 12th September, 1940, the said regulations were revoked and the defence of Canada regulations (consolidation), 1940, numbered one to sixty-four inclusive, were made and established in substitution therefor;
And whereas since the 12th day of September, 1940, several orders in council have been passed amending, altering or adding to the said substituted regulations;
And whereas at the last session of parliament a select committee of this house was appointed on the 13th June, 1940, to consider and review the said defence of Canada regulations made on the 3rd September, 1939, and amendments thereto;
14873-68}
And whereas the said committee reported to this house on the 1st August, 1940, and amongst other things recommended, in effect, that at the next session of parliament a special committee of the house be appointed to again consider and review the defence of Canada regulations; to consider and review the law relating to naturalization and to review as well the law relating to deportation;
And whereas it is deemed advisable that a committee of the house be appointed accordingly to ascertain whether the defence of Canada regulations (consolidation), 1940, and amendments thereto and the law relating to naturalization and deportation reasonably meet the requirements of the country in time of war;
Therefore be it resolved that a select committee of this house consisting of the following members: Messrs. Bertrand (Laurier), Black (Yukon), Claxton, Coldwell, Dupuis, Hansell, Hanson (Skeena), Hazen, Martin, Maybank, McKinnon (Kenora-Rainy River), Michaud, Ross (Calgary), Ross (Souris), Slaght, be appointed to consider and review the defence of Canada regulations (consolidation), 1940, and amendments thereto, and the law relating to naturalization and to review as well the law relating to deportation; with power to send for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses under oath; and to report their opinions and observations from time to time to the house.
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Before the motion is adopted I should like to make a few observations regarding it.
I want to say at the outset that we welcome the appointment of this committee. A similar body was established last session. It met many times, and presented a report which was not moved at the time, and therefore not adopted. As one member of that committee who was not satisfied with all the recommendations made, I was disappointed that there was no opportunity for the discussion of the regulations and of the report before the regulations were further amended. I feel that, in their present form and under the present methods of their administration, many of our elementary democratic rights are being jeopardized.
Neither I nor any member of our group would suggest that subversive activities interfering with our success in the present struggle should be permitted or tolerated for a moment. On the other hand, we insist that every accused person, every accused organization, and-may I add-every accused newspaper ought to have the right of a proper hearing before an impartial and competent tribunal. Further, we believe that a decision from such an authority set up under the defence of Canada regulations at the present time should be equally binding upon the accused and upon the Department of Justice unless some further method of appeal to an impartial tribunal is provided. As the regulations now stand, this is not the case, as I shall try to show in a very few moments.
1068	COMMONS
Defence of Canada-Special Committee
As a member of the committee which sat last year, I and some others tried to amend the regulations to safeguard our democratic rights of citizenship. Of the many changes we suggested then, I still regard those seeking to enlarge the number of an appeal committee to at least three persons, one of whom holds high judicial office, as the most important. At the present time one person, on evidence supplied by the accuser, alone makes a decision which may involve a long period of incarceration for the accused. Even then the decision of the appeal committee is not final; for the Department of Justice may or may not accept a recommendation and act upon it.
A week ago yesterday the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) tabled his report of the action taken under the regulations from November 1 to February 17. The report alarmed me, because it showed that the committee, a judge in this case, after reviewing the evidence contained in the police files, recommended the release of twenty-four persons and the Department of Justice refused to accept the recommendation in nine of these cases. The sweeping, undemocratic power vested in the minister under regulation 21 is clearly demonstrated in a judgment of Mr. Justice Hope of Ontario dated January 9 and reported on page 49 of the Ontario Weekly Notes of February 7, 1941. The learned judge had before him an application for a writ of habeas corpus from J. A. P. Sullivan, president of the Seamen's Union, who w'as interned on June 18, 1940. As we all know, the right of habeas corpus has been for many centuries a fundamental right of the entire British judicial system. It is the cornerstone of British democratic justice. On several occasions I have stated that regulation 21 abolishes this right of habeas corpus. The judgment of Mr. Justice Hope fully substantiates this view.
The first point which emerges from the report of the judgment as it appears in the Weekly Notes is that, when Sullivan asked for the reasons for his internment, he was merely told the following, and upon it he had to base his appeal. I quote from the Ontario Weekly Notes of February 7, page 50:
Your detention has been deemed necessary in the interests of the state because representations have been made that you are a member of the communist party of Canada, a subversive organization which is opposed to the interests of Canada. In view of this, it would appear that you are disloyal to Canada.
Can anyone in this house suggest that this information constitutes sufficient particulars upon which an accused person may base an appeal? Suppose that Sullivan denies, as I believe he does, that he is a member of the communist party; how can he prove it if all he

is told is that representations have been made that he is a member of the communist party? I admit quite readily that under present war conditions ordinary court procedure may have to be set aside on the ground that it may not be feasible to produce the plainclothes officers who are checking subversive activities. But surely the accused or his counsel should have access to the written accusations against the detained person. Such particulars as dates when the accused is alleged to have joined the subversive organization or was actually at its meetings or serving in some subsidiary organization ought to be furnished in order that a proper trial may be proceeded with. Unless some such information is accessible to the accused, provision for review under regulation 22 is largely a mockery. The important point in this connection is that the judge held that the matter of particulars is-
... a discretionary matter for the committee. It is not subject to the review or direction of the court.
On the matter of writ of habeas corpus itself, the court held that internment under regulation 21 is-
... a matter which is discretionary with the minister in his administrative capacity and is not subject to the review of the courts.
But the judge goes further than. that. He decides that a Canadian citizen interned under regulation 21 becomes "a prisoner of war" and therefore concludes that all of this- . . . precludes the granting of a release under writ of habeas corpus herein, without the consent of the director or internment operations.
Thus, if the court should grant the writ, it could not order the release without the consent of an officer appointed by the Department of National Defence whose duties are not concerned with the reasons for internment but with the proper administration of the camps. Surely that procedure violates the principles of British justice. In my opinion it is fantastic.
Let me summarize the situation as I see it in the light of the judgment to which I have referred. First, the minister, on the advice of the police, orders an internment. Next, the right of writ of habeas corpus is abolished. Next, the courts cannot interfere. For, next, if they did, another administrative officer, the director of internment operations, has power to detain in spite of the courts. And lastly, the review committee, one man, functions under regulations which make it impossible for the accused to put up an adequate defence and have a proper hearing; and even if the committee decides that an internee should be released, the minister can still refuse to follow its advice. In short, all power from start to finish is vested in the minister, his police department and his legal advisers.

Defence of Canada-Special Committee
Surely this is the antithesis of British and Canadian democracy. Even the special committee of which I was a member last session was denied access to any files or other documents relating to internments, although the reference gives us some rights in regard to the production of papers.
Now what does all this mean? It means that the police detain and intern a British subject on grounds which seem satisfactory to them. A judge examines this evidence, which the accused has no opportunity of rebutting, and recommends his release. The minister, acting on the advice of his department, including the police who originally made the investigation and laid the charge, refuses to release the person in spite of the judge's recommendation. This is surely a most dangerous situation. The department and the police accuse and detain. The committee, a judge, reviews and recommends release. But the final decision rests with the accuser. This, I submit, is a reversal of all democratic procedure which ought not to be allowed to continue.
The report of the Minister of Justice to which I have referred, presented to the house a week ago, itemizes the detentions since November 1 under the headings Germans, Italians, Communists and National Unity party. I wonder how the released are itemized, and particularly how the nine who were not released were catalogued.
Last week I had occasion to draw the attention of the minister to an article by Commissioner S. T. Wood of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in The Canadian Spokesman. On February 19 the minister stated that the article clearly represented conditions as they exist in Canada according to the records of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The gist of the article to which I refer is contained in this paragraph:
Many may be surprised to hear that it is not the nazi nor the fascist but the radical who constitutes our most troublesome problem. Whereas the enemy alien is usually recognizable and easily rendered innocuous by clear-cut laws applicable to his case, your "red" has the protection of citizenship, his foreign master is not officially an enemy and, unless he blunders into the open and provides proof of his guilt, he is much more difficult to suppress. Since communism was outlawed, most of his work is carried on under cover of other organizations and associations pretending to be, or in reality loyal to the constitution.
Make no mistake about this: I have nothing but the utmost contempt for communist activities in relation to the war. Make no mistake about it. Nor, I suppose, is there any group in the house which is more frequently denounced and consistently undermined by the communist party and their fellow travellers than the group to which I belong.
But let me add this, that no matter what the-opinion of an individual may be, under our-British democratic rights of citizenship, every one of our citizens ought to be entitled to plead his cause and to have a fair and impartial trial.
I said a moment ago that I had nothing but contempt for the communist party. For after years of propaganda, demanding that the democratic nations stand firmly against Hitler and fascism, they first supported the declaration of war in September, 1939, and then, a few weeks later, because it suited Russian foreign policy, they denounced as an imperialist adventure the war which they had urged. Nevertheless, to say that communist activities are more dangerous to democratic institutions than those of fascist and nazi sympathizers is surely to fly in the face of recent history. It was this attitude of mind that allowed the war to steal upon us. It was this attitude of mind which brought about the arrest of the communist leaders in France but let the fascist sympathizers obtain power and then betray her. The views expressed by Commissioner Wood in that regard are the views which destroyed collective security, encouraged the rise of Hitler, and, through the long period of appeasement, brought us to the present crisis in our history.
Let us remember that the present struggle is not between nations as such, or imperialisms as such, but between two conflicting ways of life. As J. B. Priestley has said, we are fighting not only nazism in Germany but the same set of ideas when they are held by people who speak the English tongue and are of British stock. The statement of Commissioner Wood, approved by the department, shows an entire failure to grasp the implications of the present war and the situation generally. Commissioner Wood says, "the radical is the problem." How does he define that term?
Last session the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) complained that copies of her speeches, entitled "Why I Oppose the Budget," had been seized. I was not clear whether they had been seized as such, or among communist or other subversive literature. I therefore made some inquiry and found that at Regina they were the only pamphlets seized. No other pamphlets were taken from the hall. The officer gave his receipt, dated October 3, 1940. I have a copy of it. It reads:
Received from W. Browne, secretary workers protective organization, quantity of papers headed "Why I opposed the budget", accepted for purposes of inquiry.
Woodward, R.C.M.P.
1070	COMMONS
Defence of Canada-Special Committee
The pamphlets consisted, I understand, of extracts from speeches made by the hon. member in this house.
Last Wednesday the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) stated that the commissioner never intended to say anything that would reflect on the rights and duties of members of parliament. We in this house have certain rights and privileges, which we should guard jealously. It may be that in this article there was no reflection upon members of parliament, but the seizure of pamphlets circulated by the hon. member for North Battleford, and being simply extracts from speeches she made in this house, is a serious interference with the privileges of this house and this parliament which ought not to be tolerated by the members of this house, no matter where they sit. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is for you to judge whether an hon. member transgresses or exceeds his rights here, and not for the mounted police.
Having placed this matter before you I am asking that it be given some consideration. At the same time I ask the Minister of Justice, when he has time, to explain this action to the house.
Now compare the statements of the hon. member for North Battleford with statements that were made, let us say, in the Ottawa Citizen of January 11. That paper contained a long editorial entitled "At the Business End of the Bren." The concluding words were these:
When the lads come home from overseas after some years of service at the real business end of the Bren gun, they may know better where to shoot than Canadian veterans did in the years of debt and privation after the last war.
Was there ever a clearer case of incitement to men in uniform when they return from overseas to use force to obtain what they were after? I believe in the freedom of the press and freedom of speech, but the government adopted regulations under which men have been prosecuted and interned for far less than this. Justice, if it is to be justice, must be impartial. What has been done by the attorney general of Canada, to whose attention I drew this editorial, or by the attorney general of Ontario, whose attention I have reason to believe was also drawn to it by someone else?
Yesterday we had the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) tell us in the house that a newspaper, the Financial Post, was number one saboteur in Canada.


Mr. TURGEON:: When the minister said that was he speaking of sabotage against Canada or against H. R. MacMillan?
fMr. Coldwell.]


Major James William Coldwell: I understood he was speaking of Canada, because he said that that paper right from the beginning had endeavoured to stop the production of Bren guns. That was long before Mr. MacMillan was connected with the department.


James Gray Turgeon: I think when he made that statement about sabotage he was referring to Mr. MacMillan.


Major James William Coldwell: I hold no brief for any of the papers that have been suppressed; I hold no brief for the Canadian Tribune, which has been suppressed this week, but I agree with the Right Hon. Sir Percy Harris, of Bethnal Green South West division, a Liberal member of the British house, who when two communist papers were recently suppressed in Great Britain made this statement when he seconded the amendment condemning that suppression:
It would be a very bad day for parliament and democracy if a paper could be closed down without discussion in the House of Commons.
Yet these things are being done without the knowledge or consent of this house.
I believe that the greatest threat to a successful conclusion of this war does not come from the discredited communist party, which has been revealed in its true colours as the agent of a foreign power, but from persons in high places who fear the progressive aspirations of the common people more than they fear the thing we call fascism. Was not that the story of France, and of the traitorous conduct of influential people in other fallen nations?
What I have said to-day ought to be said. The danger to democracy and progress is within our gates as well as without. And we are looking in the wrong places for the most dangerous subversive influences, I submit. When our mounted police turn their eyes to seek those who sympathize with the dictatorships, let them look above the gutter and the beer parlour, then perhaps they will find where the real danger to our democratic institutions lies.
There are subtle ways of defeating our cause. In Britain they know for what they fight. There they do not fear the so-called radical; they fear more those who through the years looked to Hitler as their protection against the will of the people. In support of that statement let me say it is significant that in Great Britain they have not bothered with the communist leaders, indeed they have only just lately suppressed the communist daily newspaper. But they have put in an internment camp a member of parliament-not a Labour or a communist member, a Conserva-

Defence of Canada-Special Committee
tive member of the house. They have put into internment camps men in high places, because they know that the real danger to democratic institutions in Great Britain came not from below but from those in high places who could use their influence to defeat the aims of the common people. Such statements, for example, as were made by Senator Meighen at a public function in Toronto or in another place, are subversive statements, among the most subversive I have seen. The statement in the Ottawa Citizen is more dangerously subversive than anything I have seen in any so-called radical or communist paper published in Canada.
I support the setting up of this committee and the broad reference made to it. But I feel it is my duty to take this opportunity of laying before this House of Commons the dangers which I see in the present regulations and their administration.
I should like to quote the material part of the resolution which was seconded by Sir Percy Harris, the Liberal member to whom I referred. It was moved by Mr. Bevan, a Labour member of the house. In part the resolution uses these words, which express my idea exactly:
That this house expresses its detestation of the propaganda of the Daily Worker-
That was the communist newspaper in England.
-in relation to the war, as it is convinced that the future of democratic institutions and the expanding welfare of the people everywhere depend on the successful prosecution of the war till fascism is finally defeated; but is of the opinion that the confidence of considerable numbers of people can be undermined if it can be shown to them that any newspaper can be suppressed in a manner which leaves that newspaper no chance of stating its case-
That which applies to a newspaper applies equally to an individual.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Has my
hon. friend read the speech of Mr. Herbert Morrison?


Mr. COLD WELL:: Yes; and I would agree with his characterization of the Daily Worker and its propaganda; but I say that in this country it is a blot on our democracy that the only information given to people who are detained under regulation 21 is that which I quoted once before:
Your detention has been deemed necessary in the interests of the state because representations have been made that you are a member of the communist party of Canada, a subversive organization which is opposed to the interests of Canada. In view of this, it would appear that you are disloyal to Canada.
That, I say, is insufficient evidence upon which an accused person may contest any case.
Just before I sit down I should like to refer to the suspension of the Canadian Tribune, in regard to which I have received a number of telegrams. I understand that this newspaper has been suspended simply on verbal notice from the police.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I may tell my hon.
friend that regular notice was duly served on that newspaper on February 25, after verbal notice had been given.


Major James William Coldwell: I had no knowledge
of that fact. I am glad to hear the Secretary of State (Mr. Casgrain) make that statement, and perhaps a little later he will have something further to say about the matter. It seems to me, however, that when a newspaper is suspended we should know the reasons for that suspension; whether or not it was guilty of some contravention of the law and in what particular, and why, if it was guilty of a contravention of the law, it was not taken into court. In contrast may I suggest that if the Financial Post has been the number one saboteur, surely it should have been proceeded against as was the Canadian Tribune; and if the statement I have quoted from the Ottawa Citizen-and that was a correct statement from the editorial-having been brought to the attention of the authorities, was subversive, as I believe it was, then some action should have been taken in that regard. If we are going to have regulations let them be administered impartially, without regard to who breaks the regulations. Then we shall feel that at least an attempt at justice is being made.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, may I say
first that in the task which is mine, that of exercising a discretion which at times is far from pleasant, I am merely doing the work that has been entrusted to me by parliament, and more particularly by a committee which last year sat especially for the purpose of considering and revising these regulations. I was not a member of the committee. I intentionally refrained from being a member, in order that the decisions of the committee should not be influenced in any way by what I might have to say. Neither will I be a member of the committee which is to be appointed under the resolution now before the house. I will do my duty if, when that committee reports, new regulations are enacted amending the old ones. I will apply those regulations with calm, with deliberation, with circumspection; but I will apply them, whatever may be the criticism.
1072	COMMONS
Defence of Canada-Special Committee
Are restrictions necessary in time of war? This is the first question, and hon. members must not forget that we are engaged in a life and death conflict. Are restrictions necessary which should not exist in ordinary times? If the answer is in the affirmative somebody has to be entrusted with the duty of applying those restrictions. If the person or authority or body entrusted with that duty does not deserve to be entrusted with it, 'has not the confidence of the community, then change him; put in somebody else who will command the confidence of the people. But the restrictions must remain, because they are a necessity in war time. My hon. friend says it is a terrible thing that in nine cases the Minister of Justice has declined to accept the recommendation of the committee, composed of one judge, for the release of an interned person.


Thomas Miller Bell: The principle is wrong. I am not criticizing the minister.


Ernest Lapointe: Then why give the discretion to the minister? Is he a rubber stamp?


Major James William Coldwell: He should be bound by the recommendations.


Ernest Lapointe: That is entirely contrary to the whole principle of the matter. In a case of this kind the discretion of the Minister of Justice is a matter of public policy, not one of strict law. It should be so, and it is so everywhere else.
Perhaps it is better that I should give the four stages through which these matters go. Before a man is recommended for internment the police have gathered all the particulars concerning him, and there is a record of his activities. This is submitted to a legal man, who is counsel for the police. In the district of Montreal it is Mr. Fauteux, chief crown prosecutor, a very able legal gentleman. After he has passed on the case-and the man is at liberty while all this is being done-the matter is sent to a committee on which Mr. Robertson, now acting Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, and Mr. MacNeill, are sitting. These men consider the facts, before they are submitted to me for an order for internment. Some precautions therefore are taken. Then if the man is a British subject he has the right of appeal, and the appeal is heard by the committee which, by the way, was selected by the parliamentary committee which sat last year as the proper authority to act in the matter. The committee sends the recommendation to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice must then use his discretion. My hon. friend says he should not have that discretion. That will be for the

committee to decide. I do not want even to discuss the matter too strongly; I merely point out that I disagree with my hon. friend in this respect. There are things with which the secret service of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Minister of Justice are acquainted which could not be given out.
My hon. friend complained that last year the committee could not get production of everything it wanted. Well, we must act on communications which come to us from foreign governments, to say nothing of those which come from our secret agents. Those communications should not be made known to the community, otherwise their work would be shattered and useless.
These things we know; and if in my own view, according to my own conscience and after consultation with those charged with keeping order in Canada at this time, I come to the conclusion that in the public interest and for the public safety of the country it is better to keep that man inside, then I will keep him inside.
My hon. friend criticized the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for having said in his article that at the present time the communists are those who give the police the most trouble. Well, Commissioner Wood was saying exactly what conditions are, according to his own experience. My hon. friend will understand that conditions are not the same in respect to all. Alien enemies are interned-or. if they are not interned, I may tell you that those who are not are good boys and are keeping peaceful.
On the other hand we are flooded all the time with communist circulars. In spite of the fact that many of their organizations and printing presses in Montreal have been confiscated and destroyed, they have found a way of continuing to print subversive literature of all kinds. My hon. friend has said that the communists do not like his group. I may tell him that they do not like me, either; I am usually the target of those people in their dirty literature which is being circulated in Montreal, Quebec and elsewhere. They are doing the same at other points, and they are a good deal more active than some others.
It is not a question of deciding whether fascist or nazi ideals are worse or better than communist ideals. That does not enter into the consideration of the matter. It is a fact that most of those who are making trouble at this time are the men the commissioner of the mounted police described in his article.
My hon. friend criticized the inaction of the department with respect to the article in

Defence of Canada-Special Committee
the Ottawa Citizen. My hon. friend sent me that article, not very long ago. I may tell him that he is right. It was a subversive article which was published by the Ottawa Citizen on that date, and I may tell him that they will have to answer for it before the courts of the country.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: What does the minister mean by that?


Ernest Lapointe: I may
wait a little, because some evil-minded people may think that it would be because of their editorials regarding myself that I would act now. But this is certainly an article which is subversive, which is an appeal to disorder and to trouble, and my hon. friend is right in denouncing it. I assure him that something will be done in the matter, if this has the effect of satisfying him.
I do not know very much about the Canadian Tiibune. People seem to be under the impression that censorship is under the Department of Justice. It is not. The censors are under the Secretary of State. For a time I had the pleasure of closing a couple of newspapers, but on that occasion I was acting Secretary of State, and it was in that capacity I proceeded.
I am pleased my hon. friend did not use the commonplace argument or absurdity that Canada is fighting to save democracy in Europe and to destroy it here. That is the argument we read in some newspapers, and it has been used on platforms on different occasions. Of course it is an absurdity. We have enforced these restrictions not to destroy but to protect democracy. We have enforced them to keep and to preserve it. Essentially they are only temporary. They are operative in a state of emergency, and they will disappear as soon as we have peace and victory, as we hope to have some day. But those restrictions are there to control people who would do nothing to help Canada in her war work, and to prevent them from doing anything which would impede that work. That is the reason for the restrictions. I believe they serve a useful purpose. Our soldiers and sailors and airmen are subject to restrictions a great deal more severe than those contained in the defence of Canada regulations, and they do not complain. Surely our airmen and our sailors, who are willingly risking their lives every day on destroyers and other craft, have a right to expect that we in the parliament of Canada will prevent people from stabbing them in the back while they are fighting for us.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the purpose and the reason for these restrictions, and I am sure
that my hon. friend himself (Mr. Coldwell) would be the last to propose that they should be done away with. He wants to modify them and to be sure that they are applied more fairly, and he will have his opportunity before a committee of the house. I shall accept the new regulations if changes are made, and apply them with the same force and vigour and circumspection as I do to-day, using my best discretion in their application.
So far as the trade unions are concerned, it has been stated over and over again that trade unionists have been interned under the defence of Canada regulations. But that is not so. Some people who were members of a trade union have been interned, not because they were trade unionists, but because they were communists, because they had acted for the communist party, because they had exercised their activities to spread communist ideas. Why, Mr. Speaker, the trade unions themselves in some cities of Canada have been compelled to expel members from their ranks because of such activities. We know from our records in the secret service that instructions have been given to their members by the heads of the communist party to join other associations and organizations to try to spread their ideas and to sabotage the war effort of Canada. They were even instructed to join the army. Everybody knows that one man wearing his majesty's uniform was arrested last year for distributing communist literature on the streets of Ottawa. We have to protect Canada against that sort of thing, and the fact that some of these men are members of trade unions surely should not protect them against the laws of the country and the regulations.
I believe, sir, that we have applied the laws and regulations with calmness and discretion. We have not yielded to hysteria. As a matter of fact the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar will remember that for a long time in this house I was under attack on the opposite ground, that I was too lenient, that subversive activities were going on in Canada and that I was doing nothing to check or prevent them. But now it seems that the criticism comes from the other extremity. Under these circumstances I must have struck a pretty fair average, and one criticism* helps me to answer the other.
I have said what I wanted to say on this matter. I wish to impress on the house the extreme difficulty of the work we have to do, and its extreme importance. I ask the house to give me its confidence as long as I am the one designated to do this work, for without that confidence I could not fulfil my duties. I hope that at least I shall be satisfied in my own mind that I have done my best to serve my country in this time of war.

1074	COMMONS
Defence of Canada-Special Committee


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to
intervene in the debate on this resolution except with respect to the two new subjects which are to be referred to the committee, naturalization and deportation, and upon that I intended to make some inquiry.
I have listened attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and also to the reply that has been given by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and I am bound to say that in my view the Minister of Justice has correctly stated the principles that should guide him. So far as we are concerned on this side of the house we believe in the necessity of restricting the liberty of the subject in time of war, and if we accept that principle we cannot do anything else but support the general view which the Minister of Justice has given to the house. That principle is based on something else. It is based on the theory that we must preserve the safety of the state. In times of peace British justice stands on a different principle. Any man charged in a British court of justice is deemed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. But owing to the necessities of war time and the standards we believe in, the principles which have been laid down in the defence of Canada regulations and those in England, that position must of necessity be reversed.
Parliament in its wisdom passed the War Measures Act. Is there anyone who will say that we should not have the War Measures Act? I admit at once that unless the extraordinary powers therein contained are exercised with great care and skill and judicial ability there may be abuses. I would suppose that as those administering these regulations are human, and therefore fallible, mistakes may be made, but on the whole in time of war I do suggest that we must subscribe to the principle that the constituted authority delegated by parliament itself must be upheld.
I myself have had some qualms of conscience with respect to the suspension, in effect, of the writ of habeas corpus. Recently I have been doing some reading of British history in the time of the Hanoverians, and I call to the minds of hon. members the position as it was in, I believe, 1802-I am not quite sure of the date-when Pitt the younger was the Prime Minister of England and the Napoleonic wars were on. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Conditions in England at the present time, and to a lesser degree here, are analogous to those which then prevailed. At that time there was the danger of invasion; to-day there is a much graver danger. I do not believe there

was nearly as much danger then from what we now term the activities of the fifth columnists as there was in England prior bo 1940. But, because of the principle of the safety of the state, Pitt had parliament pass an act suspending the writ of habeas corpus. And there is a curious corollary of that action, because the people of England raised a great outcry against the taking away of this sacred right, the principle of which comes down to us from the days of magna charta, and the parliament of England had to reverse the position.
Now, under these regulations and under the authority of the War Measures Act parliament has delegated certain duties and certain discretions to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). I have had some misgivings about vesting in any one man, no matter how good, how conscientious, how upright or how capable he may be, the sole authority of exercising this discretion. But it is there, and it is the law of the land, and until parliament changes it the Minister of Justice must exercise that judicial discretion which is vested in him. It is a principle of law with which, I believe, hon. members of the legal profession will agree, that in the exercise of a legal discretion no court will interfere unless there is a clear lack of jurisdiction or a clear excess of jurisdiction. I think that is fundamental.
I am curious to know what the right hon. gentleman contemplates in the way of court action against the Ottawa Citizen. I read the article and I thought it was more than a borderline case; it seemed to me that it was really an incitement to force. I was astonished to see it, coming from the source it did. I did not think it was my duty to call the attention of the mounted police or the Minister of Justice to the Ottawa Citizen. I was quite sure that they would be fully conversant with the situation and that the police and the Department of Justice would be capable of handling it. But I am curious to know what sort of court action the minister contemplates at a later time against the Ottawa Citizen: I have been cudgelling my brain to determine from my knowledge of the law what action he could take against it.


Ernest Lapointe: I must say that I am hesitating as between two courses.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the
minister would be good enough-not now necessarily, but at a later stage-to enlighten us, I am sure it would be a very interesting chapter in the history of Canada. I am not going to say anything more about that.
I have had the opportunity of looking over the decision of Mr. Justice Hope in the

Defence oj Canada-Special Committee
Sullivan case. I think his decision is based on legal principles. I thought when that case first arose that the writ would issue but that the complete answer to it would be that the man was in custody under certain provisions of the defence of Canada regulations. I was astonished to learn that the decision was that the writ should not issue at all. I am not going to enter into a discussion of the fine legal principles which guide the judge. I am satisfied that he is right, and as no appeal has been taken that chapter is probably closed.
I am also curious to know what were the reasons for the seizure of the published speeches of the hon. member for North Battle-ford (Mrs. Nielsen). I understand they were verbatim reports of the speeches which she made in parliament.


Ernest Lapointe: A few
little changes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Ohl Well, I was not aware of that. But I would suggest that the greatest care ought to be exercised in suppressing speeches of members of parliament. 1 might be in danger myself. However, that is only in passing.
I turn for a moment to ask the Prime Minister if he would be good enough to tell the house just what he has in mind with respect to the subject matter of naturalization. It has come to my attention that considerable hardship 'has arisen because of the action in this connection of the department of the Secretary of State. In the county of Victoria, in the province of New Brunswick, there was established sixty or seventy-five years ago a colony of Danish subjects, settled into a community which is known as New Denmark. Without any question they have been among the best settlers who ever came to New Brunswick. They are law-abiding and industrious. One scarcely ever hears of one of these men being before the criminal courts. In the thirty-nine years that I have been in practice I never heard of one being at the bar of justice for a major offence. Many of them, in fact most of them, have become naturalized. Yet I am informed that the certificates of naturalization of many of them have been revoked; they have not been given any reason for this, and they are in a state of alarm. One Danish couple came first to the United States in the nineteenth century, and subsequently, before we had so many restrictions and regulations about entry to this country, they came to Canada.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Might I interrupt my hon. friend to say that, as regards certificates of the people whom he has just mentioned, I
14873-69i
do not recall that any certificates have been>. revoked. Some of them may not have been naturalized up to the present, but I do not recall having revoked any certificates.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not my file in front of me, but I received quite recently a communication with respect to a man named Hans C. Hansen, who came to the United States with his young wife prior to 1900, and subsequently entered Canada and joined the Danish colony at New Denmark. I do not suppose they went through any immigration formalities; I do not know; I judge from the correspondence that they did not. Subsequently, I believe about the year 1900, these people were naturalized under the then law of Canada. After this war started they were visited by the mounted police. They are now about eighty years of age. I do not say that the police have harassed them; I should not like to put that construction upon their conduct. But certainly the visit of the police has alarmed them. They have been obliged to deliver up their certificates and have not got them back. I communicated with the Under-Secretary of State with regard to this case and he wrote back stating that if some reputable citizen would vouch for these people the position would be clarified and they would be left in peace. I have referred the matter to my colleague, the member for that county, and I have no doubt that will be done. But there was a case where there was absolutely no necessity for any action on the part of the police, and I hope that sort of thing will cease. I have just received a note to the effect that the certificate was returned yesterday, so that I will not pursue the case any further. It is however merely one out of a number, and I would bespeak a good word for these people down there, that they be left alone, because they are loyal British subjects, every one of them.
With regard to the question of not receiving any further applications for naturalization, I hope that will be considered by this committee and that there will be some good constructive suggestions in the report of the committee. There are still in New Brunswick a substantial number of people of European origin from countries overrun by the Germans -Dutch, Belgians in my own constituencies, coal miners, men and women from Denmark who have recently come to Canada under the auspices of the government-and they have either neglected to get their certificates or have not had the requisite length of residence to qualify them. War comes and they are denied the right to apply. I hope that some liberal consideration will be given these people.
1076	COMMONS
Defence of Canada-Special Committee
With regard to the question of deportation, I suggest that the government ought to tell us what is proposed in this matter. I have recently read an interesting book on the Doukhobors, and I recall the efforts that were made some time about 1933 to deport one Peter Verigin from Canada. I remember the legal proceedings that took place, and how the efforts of the government of the day were halted by writ of habeas corpus based on the decision of the late Mr. Justice Mellish of Nova Scotia and subsequently reversed in the Supreme Court of Canada when it was too late.
I would ask the government to give us now, if they will-perhaps they are not prepared to do so-some of the considerations which have impelled them to include this in the order of reference. What is the government's proposal? They must have a policy in this regard. Surely these two important matters will not be left to the committee without any guiding government policy. In the final analysis the government must take the responsibility for a policy on both these points and I should like to know what their suggestions are.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: May I say a word about the matters of naturalization and deportation. The references to naturalization and deportation come as a result of the report of the committee last year, and that part finds its place in the report in consequence of a request of certain members of the committee, of whom the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) was most prominent, according to my recollection. He will correct me if I am wrong, but, as I remember, he requested that the report contain a recommendation that the matters of naturalization and deportation be referred to the next committee that was set up.
There was some discussion of naturalization last year. The head of the branch relating to naturalization came before the committee. Instances were mentioned of certificates having been recommended by county court judges and granted by the Secretary of State in some doubtful cases. One case in particular, I remember, was discussed at length in the committee, but I do not think the committee had any clear idea of what it wished to do or intended to do about either naturalization or deportation.
In the minds of some members, perhaps one member, the hon. member for Vancouver South-he is the one I remember distinctly-


Mr. GREEN:: You give me too much credit.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -these were important subjects that should be considered by the com-

mittee. So far as I know, the government has no proposals to place before the committee in reference to either subject.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I did not gather the full import of the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), owing to the distance that separates us, and the bad acoustics; and my hearing is also poor. Moreover, I have had experience of that hon. gentleman in my own riding from the point of view of the accuracy of his recollections of what took place in this house, which convinces me that I need not waste much time in listening to him here. But I gather from the remarks made in reply by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had some serious complaint about the manner in which the minister had fulfilled his duties in connection with the War Measures Act with respect to people making subversive statements. If this was so, and evidently it was, I also have a complaint against the Minister of Justice in that regard, and that is that he does not go far enough-and I have the proof before me.
A year ago a logger-he may have been a labourer-was half-shot, which means in British Columbia that he had had a few drinks; not an improper quantity; he was just mellow. He made some nasty remark about the war. I forget exactly what he said. I cannot remember whether it was that a man was a d- fool who enlisted or whether he said, "To h- with the war." At any rate, popular sentiment was running high and he was promptly arrested. This was an ignorant man addressing half a dozen others like himself, and he was haled into court and sharply punished. He was given a considerable fine, but I forget whether he went to gaol or not. He was rather harshly treated. But let me give the other side of the picture. As I say, this was only an illiterate man talking to a few half-drank chums. I used the word "logger," and those who come from British Columbia will bear me out when I say that the loggers in that province are as loyal as any class in Canada. You can trust them to subscribe liberally to anything that is intended to forward the war.
The other side of the picture presents itself in this way. A few weeks ago, I believe it was early in February, the local member for one of the districts which I represent in this house, the district of Comox, called a meeting of his constituents in the city of Courtenay, which meeting he said was for the purpose of advising them of his actions in the legislative assembly in the session just passed, and generally with regard to matters political. The

Defence of Canada-Special Committee
circumstances were fully set out in the local paper and I do not think the matter was unfairly stated. That was a couple of weeks ago, and he was attacked for his remarks and given an opportunity to correct them if he had been misquoted. I know that newspapers by headlines can misrepresent a man's intention, but in this case I think it is accurate. The headline reads:
Cameron opposed to war savings campaign.
The article goes on to say:
Mr. Cameron opened his address with a bitter attack upon the campaign through which the government urged the people to invest in war savings stamps and certificates, declaring that all those who condone and assist the campaign are "helping to put shackles on the people of Canada."
Further on he said:
All war necessities must be produced at cost plus wear and tear, and the entire cost must be paid out of taxation. "It won't be, however," he stated, "as long as the people allow themselves to be bamboozled by such polite blackmailing schemes as the war savings campaign."
Fairly strong! There was a large advertising scheme going on at the time to further the sale of war savings certificates. Further on he stated that:
.	.	. the safety of Canada depended upon
dispossessing the owning classes, and that the C.C.F. party stood ready to propose a bold, almost revolutionary, programme.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is that?


Alan Webster Neill: One of the leading Cooperative Commonwealth Federation men in British Columbia, a member of the local house. I think he might have left out the word "almost." Then he goes on to say:
My quarrel is against allowing our young men to risk their lives while we still leave a percentage in a privileged position to profit by the grief and woe of the rest and for that reason I cannot believe in the sincerity of those who say we are fighting this war for democracy.
The people of Canada are being misled and betrayed by such schemes as this war savings campaign and I see my duty as a public representative to protest.
I think a case like that having been presented to the minister, did require some attention. Remember, this is not a man of no importance; he occupies the position of a member of the local house and his words get the publicity and attention to which they are entitled. The paper printed an editorial objecting strongly to this and a couple of weeks went by; the gentleman had every opportunity to correct or modify his statements, and he has not done so.
This gentleman spent a great deal of his time touring the province-as he has a right
to do as provincial organizer-promulgating his views. They are naturally very strongly Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, which in itself is not objectionable, but they are also strongly tinged with diluted communism; it is often hard to tell the difference between one and the other. We from British Columbia-the situation may be different on the prairies-know how close the relationship is between those two phases of thought, shall we call them?
The other day I received some adverse comment because I referred to the fact that the recent dominion election in British Columbia resulted in the return of only one Cooperative Commonwealth Federation member instead of, I think, four that were in the last parliament. They got one man in out of sixteen candidates. Perhaps the house will understand the reason better when I throw this further light on the views expressed by this prominent leader of that body:
The picture is like this-pro-Jap yesterday; anti-Canada to-day; pro-nazi to-morrow 1


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Before the motion is carried I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a question about the text of the reference. It is about the same as last year. The minister has done very excellent work-both ministers; it has meant a lot of very heavy work for them. But would it not be better to extend the term of this committee for two or three years so they may lay out a long-range policy? They could meet in the recess, and if fees are necessary they should be paid.
I have here a copy of the report of the proceedings of the Dies committee to the United States house of representatives, adopted last month. They made one recommendation which I think is important and should be incorporated in the terms of reference. As I see it the reference is not broad enough to cover two things: (a) subversive matters in Canada; (b) anti-Canadian propaganda, in regard to which the Secretary of State and the minister have done good work. I should like to see this committee given wider powers. Last year there was a very able chairman, a university man, the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght).
I call attention to one clause in the Dies report of January, 1941, adopted by congress. They recommended that the government-
(4) withhold all federal financial support from any educational institution which permits members of its faculty to advocate communism, fascism or nazism as a substitute for our form of government to the student body of these educational institutions.
There was only one dissenting voice in that committee. One member objected that it
1078	COMMONS
Defence of Canada-Special Committee
might work a grave injustice to teachers who are merely seeking to explain the principles involved in the totalitarian philosophy. But there is a great deal of criticism of our Canadian schools and colleges along that line. There has been much discussion in the press, as there "was also in England. It was found there by a committee that investigated two years ago that there was wide circulation in the universities and among those in high authority of teachings concerning the nazi principles of socialism and totalitarianism.
Then the Washington committee recommended also that they should have power to bring about the immediate mandatory deportation of aliens who advocate any basic change in the form of our government, and legislation should be enacted requiring all employees and officials of the federal government to be American citizens. Those are two other recommendations of the committee. Other recommendations are:
The enactment of legislation^ to outlaw every political organization which is shown to be under the control of a foreign government.
The enactment of legislation to stop all immigration from foreign countries that refused to accept the return of their nationals found under American law to be deportable from this country. This legislation is made necessary by the fact that some foreign governments have refused to accept their own citizens who have been ordered deported by ;he United States government.
The committee also recommended:

added legislation to place restrictions on the distribution of totalitarian propaganda, when that distribution involves any cost to the American taxpayers.
And they also recommended:
-that the statutory period during which citizenship papers can be revoked under existing law be extended to at least ten years.
Due to the fact that the committee has discovered that many members of foreign controlled organizations have travelled on American passports which have been fraudulently obtained, the committee feels that the Statute of Limitations should be extended from three to seven years. This is made necessary because of the unusual difficulty in apprehending those who resort to the use of fraudulent passports within the period of three years.
With regard to propaganda, the report states that this literature arrives in tons from Japan, for example, by boat, and is distributed by the post office, and the American taxpayers have no alternative but to foot the bill for its distribution. This propaganda is distributed to individuals, schools, colleges, institutions and business houses, and must be handled again and again by American citizens in the employ of the United States government. The cost of distribution from the time it is taken off the boat until it reaches its destination is

borne by the United States; the postage is received in the country of origin. Germany and Japan are both members of the postal union.
It was found that a large part of this subversive German propaganda comes through the German consuls in the United States. I believe we should close our doors along those lines, and the reference to the committee might very well be extended to include antiCanadian and subversive propaganda. Many universities and colleges in this country are being criticized for the way they have been allowed all kinds of preaching of pacifism and of totalitarianism foreign to the Canadian people and other new ideas which came from Russia and have been imported through Germany into the United States and to some extent into Canada to sow the seeds of enemy propaganda. It is hard to check it, even by legislation. It is the desire of every good citizen to aid the government in this work.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Since the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has drawn the attention of the house to the suspension of the newspaper Canadian Tribune, perhaps it would be in order for me to make a few remarks on the subject.
Contrary to the understanding and statement of the hon. member, this newspaper was not suspended only on verbal orders; a written notification, signed by myself, was served by the mounted police. Headquarters here telephoned the Toronto detachment informing them that the order had been received, and at 4.45 p.m. on Monday two constables of the police called on Mr. A. A. MacLeod, editor of the Canadian Tribune, informing him that they had been advised of the making of the order, and were assured by him that it would be complied with. The original order and copy were forwarded by mail and reached Toronto on February 25. Mr. MacLeod was supplied immediately with a copy of the order, and the original was available for his inspection.
One of the objects of giving the oral notice in advance was to prevent any greater degree of inconvenience than might be necessary. It is understood that the Canadian Tribune goes to press on Wednesday or Thursday, and obviously it was desirable that those responsible for its publication should be advised of the order at the earliest possible moment after it had been issued.
With regard to the question whether or not this paper should have been suspended, I think it would be advisable to place before the house the reasons which prompted the Canadian coordination committee on censor-

Meat and Canned Foods Act-Fish
ship to advise the government to suspend this publication, and why the government has seen fit to issue such an order under my signature.
The action of the government in suspending the Canadian Tribune was taken only after long and careful examination of its contents, and after two warnings. The first issue appeared in January, 1940. From its inception this newspaper has studiously refrained from supporting Canada's war effort. It has repeatedly carried material which was at least on the borderline of contravening the defence of Canada regulations. The government has ample reason to believe that if it is not actually a communist publication it is pursuing the policy which a communist publication in this country would be instructed by its headquarters to follow.
The Canadian Tribune has been twice warned by the press censors, the first time orally and the second time in writing, that it was treading on dangerous ground. The settled policy of the newspaper, however, appears to be to print such material as would encourage readers to refrain from cooperation in the Canadian war effort.
The government has shown great restraint in dealing with this publication, since the Canadian Tribune has sought to create the impression that it is a left wing labour organ sincerely concerned with the problems of organized labour, the preservation of civil liberties and the welfare of the masses. The government is determined to preserve the maximum freedom of the press consistent with the defence of Canada regulations. It is anxious not to curb sincere critical comment, and has therefore tolerated considerable objectionable material in the columns of the Canadian Tribune. I have in my hand one of the last issues of this newspaper, dated February 1, 1941. I need not read it to the house, but it contains references to certain speeches and utterances of a member of the British House of Commons.
The recent display given by this newspaper to material obviously inspired by the actions of communists, in the light of its whole record, has driven the government to conclude that it could no longer justify its earlier forbearance. The order to suspend, rather than suppress, this newspaper will afford those responsible for its publication one more opportunity to make it what it purports to be, namely "a journal of democratic opinion." A rigid distinction must be drawn between subversion and criticism, and we cannot allow the democratic privilege of freedom of speech to be abused by sworn enemies of all democratic forms, in the furtherance of their work of destruction.
On motion of Mr. Green the debate was adjourned.



CANADIAN YOUTH CONGRESS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I have communicated with the Montreal headquarters of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in regard to a question which was asked by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) a couple of days ago. The answer is:
1.	The home of Jack Brierley was searched on February 12 by members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Montreal city police force under authority of a search warrant issued by Judge Marin. The search was made in an endeavour to trace the source of communist publications and literature which is being insidiously and widely distributed throughout the city of Montreal. The Canadian youth congress has not, as yet, been declared an illegal organization under the provisions of the defence of Canada regulations, and the raid in question was directed not against the Canadian youth organization but against Jack Brierley. Certain important material was seized.
2.	The raid was made under the authority of a search warrant.



MEAT AND CANNED FOODS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud). On the order paper, under government orders, will be found No. 7, for the second reading of Bill No. 14, to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act (fish and shell fish). I should like to direct the minister's attention to the report of a meeting held at Amherst, Nova Scotia, on February 25, attended by nearly all the members of the maritime branch of the canned food section of the Canadian Manufacturers association, at which a resolution was passed to the effect that the lobster industry would not have time, between now and the opening of the next packing season, to adjust itself to the proposed changes, particularly under stress of war-time conditions in the industry.
I should like to ask the minister if this resolution has reached him and whether in

Meat and Canned Foods Act-Fish
the light of the resolution he intends to proceed with this bill at this session; or, if he does proceed with the bill, will he allow sufficient time before it becomes operative so that the industry may adjust itself to the changes recommended? I understand it was the consensus at that meeting that the changes were desirable but that they should not become operative immediately. What is the position?


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) :: The matter to which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has referred was brought to my attention yesterday by the officers of the maritime section of the canned fish branch of the Canadian Manufacturers association.
I believe the views that have been expressed have resulted from a misunderstanding of the situation. The inspection and grading of canned lobster was unanimously approved at a meeting of the packers, fishermen and dealers on November 6 last, hpld at Moncton. After that meeting some of the officers representing the interested parties, together with officers of the department, proceeded to prepare legislation to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act in order to give optional powers to the minister to enforce inspection and grading, subject to regulations which were to be approved by the parties. The confusion arose when the proposed amendments to the act and some of the proposed regulations to be made thereunder at a later time were forwarded to these people for their consideration. They thought all were to be approved immediately by act of parliament, and made compulsory. This matter has been explained to them, and they have been informed that they will have ample time to consider all the regulations which may be made under the proposed enactment. They have agreed to that.



WAR MUNITIONS AND MATERIALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), a copy of which I sent him this forenoon.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is out.


Clarence Gillis: Then I shall direct the question to the government. It arises out of a telegram I received this morning from lodge 1064 of the steel workers union, Sydney, Nova Scotia. Is it the intention of the government

to make use of the plate mill located at Sydney, Nova Scotia, and if so, what progress is being made with respect to putting it into shape for operation? This mill was created during the last war under circumstances similar to those through which war industries are being created to-day.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has observed, the minister is not in the house at the moment. I suggest that the question stand as a notice.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Vien in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
87. Departmental administration, $154,440.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, under this vote I assume it will be in order to discuss matters relating to the penitentiaries.


Ernest Lapointe: I believe a discussion of penitentiaries would be more properly debatable under item 96 of the estimates.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I could discuss the matter of the policy of the department under this item. Hon. members who sat in parliament between 1930 and 1935, and more especially those who sat between 1935 and 1940, will recall that largely as a result of the agitation.-I was almost going to say misplaced activities-of the former hon. member for Grey-Bruce, and as a result of the newspaper agitation of the Toronto Globe as constituted in earlier days, five years ago to-day this government set up another royal commission to investigate our whole penal system.
The commission consisted of Mr. Justice Joseph Archambault, of the superior court of the province of Quebec, a distinguished former member of this house, one whom it was always a pleasure to know and to meet, and who had had a wide experience at the bar in criminal practice ; Mr. R. W. Craig, K.C. of Winnipeg, at one time I believe attorney general for Manitoba, and Mr. Harry W. Anderson, a distinguished member of the press gallery, in his lifetime a noted publicist in Canada, one who had taken a keen personal interest in the matter and had been to a great extent if not wholly responsible for the attitude of the Globe at that time. Unfortunately Mr. Anderson passed away, and his place was taken by Mr. McRuer, an experienced lawyer

Supply-Justice
of Toronto-and,- by the way, a defeated Liberal candidate in the constituency of High Park.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: One of the few.


Ernest Lapointe: Was a Liberal candidate defeated? He must have been a rare specimen.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A rara avis?-there are such in this world, and there will be more later.


Mr. MacNICOL:: They are not rare in Toronto.


Richard Burpee Hanson: However, that is by the way. This commission made an exhaustive survey. They held sittings in every province; they went to all the principal centres across the dominion. They held sittings in my own city. In 1937 they visited the United States. They went overseas to study the penal systems of England, Scotland, Holland, Belgium, Germany and France. On April 4, 1938-almost three years ago-the commission presented to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) a report consisting of 418 pages. The cost of that commission to the taxpayers of Canada was, I am told, $88,810.25.
The recommendations of the commission were numerous and varied. They were so varied in fact that I shall not take up the time of the house to dwell upon them. That is not the point I have in mind. One of the recommendations which appealed strongly to the government was that a commission system should be established to administer our penitentiary system in Canada, rather than have it carried on under administration by the department, through a superintendent.
Late in the session of 1938, almost I believe in the dying days of that session, the Minister of Justice brought to the house a bill providing for the appointment of a penitentiaries commission, but carrying into effect very few of the remaining recommendations made by the royal commission. If I remember correctly, that bill, and its successor, which was subsequently enacted, reenacted a large number of the provisions of the act found in the revised statutes of Canada. The principal departure was the setting up of the principle of commission administration, in contradistinction to departmental administration. I was not then in parliament, but I understand vigorous protests were made by the opposition to the effect that sufficient opportunity was not given at that time, in the dying days of the session, properly to consider the matter.
The Minister of Justice, however, insisted on the passage of the bill, and on June 29, 1938, he made this statement, as reported at page 43S3 of Hansard-I direct particular attention to the passage I quote:
It is a necessity, because I do not see how we can proceed under the present system after what has taken place. I would not feel that I could safely be responsible for the administration of the penitentiaries.
That .is to say, he would not feel he could be responsible if the system was continued under the old law. I pause here to say that due largely to economic conditions in Canada beginning, we will say, in 1929 and continuing on until very recent years, there was a substantial increase in the criminal population of our penitentiaries. Most of this increase was due to economic stress; most of the cases were cases of robbery and robbery with violence, and a very considerable number of desperate characters were incarcerated in our penal institutions during that period. Among them were some communists, about whom we have heard this afternoon. They carried on their nefarious work among the criminal population with the result that there were riots and all that sort of thing, an aspect of the matter which at the moment I need not traverse. But I want to emphasize the fact that it was probably because of the situation then existing that the minister made the statement which I have quoted.
The minister having made that statement upon his responsibility as the directing head of the penitentiary system, the then leader of the opposition waived his objection to the bill and it passed this house. Subsequently- I think for the same reason that had been alleged in this house, and possibly others- the bill was rejected in the other house, and there the matter stood. When the Minister of Justice announced to the house the rejection of the bill in the senate he made this statement, which will be found at page 4511 of Hansard of June 30, 1938:
All I may add is that this postponement of a needed reform, apart from being detrimental to public interest, and increasing to a dangerous degree the difficulties of my task, will not serve any useful purpose, not even that which seems to be at the basis of the adverse vote.
He was referring, of course, to the action of the other house.
In the following session the minister presented the same bill, and it passed both houses and received the royal assent on April
5,	1939, nearly two years ago. The act is cited as The Penitentiary Act, 1939, chapter
6.	3 George VI, the last section of which, section 84, provides that the act shall come into force on a date to be fixed by proclama-
Supply-Justice

tion of the governor in council published in the Canada Gazette. I have had search made in the Canada Gazette, and I find that this statute has never been proclaimed. In view of the minister's statements to which I have referred, and which obviously were made in good faith-I am not suggesting anything else -one would have expected immediate action- the proclamation of the bill and the appointment of a commission to relieve the minister of the responsibility which he found so onerous and indeed dangerous. Mind you, Mr. Chairman, this was not in war time.
As I have stated, the main purpose of the bill was to set up a commission form of administration for our penal institutions, a three-man commission instead of a one-man superintendency.
What is the situation to-day? Two years have gone by. The bill has not been proclaimed, no appointments have been made, the minister still bears the heavy and onerous and dangerous burden-and in addition there is a war on. One of the inspectors continues to act as superintendent, and apparently with satisfaction, because we do not hear a word about him. If the former member for Grey-Bruce were in the house we might be hearing something about the penitentiaries, but that element having been removed from our society the agitation has entirely ceased. I am not saying that in any derogatory sense at all. She apparently has accomplished her mission here in this reform of our penal institutions and is no doubt devoting her attention to other activities, with profit I hope to herself and to those with whom she is associated. The minister is still carrying on under the old system, and I think he is to be congratulated. The cost of the superintendency to-day is less than $5,000 for salary. The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I am right. The acting superintendent has the standing of an inspector with the pay of that position.
Under the proposed set-up a three-man commission is to be appointed, costing this country $24,000 a year, with a chairman at $9,000 and two other commissioners at $7,500 a year. The time has arrived when the minister ought to abandon this whole proposal, scrap the bill, appoint a superintendent of penitentiaries and proceed under the old act, which is to be found in the revised statutes.
I suggest that never at any time was this proposal anything more than a sop to the former member for Grey-Bruce and to certain newspapers. In view of the fact that our penal system has operated with apparent success on the old basis, and especially so during the past two or three years, I suggest that the proposed commission be relegated to the same pigeon-

hole as that in which most of the other recommendations of the $88,000 royal commission are to be found. The major part of them will never emerge and see the light of day.
By the way, if hon. gentlemen will look at the estimates they will see that this money has been voted each year since the passing of the act, and it is in the estimates to-day; but the statute itself has never been proclaimed and the money is not spent. Let us do away with this farce. Let us proceed under a system that is reasonably satisfactory, and, I would add, much more economical to the taxpayers of Canada in this time of war. I invite the minister to take heed of the suggestions I have made to him. The present is no time to embark on these new expenditures. I urge upon the minister that he remove these votes from the estimates.


Ernest Lapointe: The
leader of the opposition has been fairly accurate in the historical review he has given of this matter, except in some particulars, and he adorned his oration with some comments, of course, that may not have been altogether called for. When the investigation commission was appointed there had been requests for it from various parts of Canada. My hon. friend gives too much credit to the former member for Grey-Bruce-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think so.


Ernest Lapointe: -when he states that she was the one responsible for the appointment of the commission. No doubt she was strongly in favour of it, but that attitude was not confined to the former member for Grey-Bruce. There had been difficulties and troubles, and the press had been commenting on our system in a not altogether favourable way. I remember that my own fellow townsman, Archdeacon Scott, the old padre, whom everybody in Canada loves, was perhaps the strongest advocate of a thorough investigation of our penitentiaries. As a matter of fact, in 1935 the present Prime Minister made it part of his platform; it w'as a pledge which he took before the electors of Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Another
broken pledge?


Ernest Lapointe: He pledged there would be a commission to investigate the system.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He was
safe.


Ernest Lapointe: A commission, a very good one, as my hon. friend himself said, was appointed, and it did a

Supply-Justice
very fine piece of work. The reports of the commission deserve to be not only read but seriously studied by all those who are interested in social work. My hon. friend says that no part of the recommendations has been applied. Such of the recommendations as could be applied without the appointment of a commission, have been put into effect by regulation. As my hon. friend said, the bill was rejected by the senate in 1938. It was made law in 1939 at the end of the session, probably June.


Richard Burpee Hanson: April.


Ernest Lapointe: April?
Very well. Of course the main provision of the act is for the appointment of a permanent penitentiaries commission. My hon. friend said we should discard that altogether. May I remind him of what is stated in that report, that Canada is about the only country in the world where there is no commission in charge of prisons and penitentiaries. The British system has been mentioned in the house time and again; in Great Britain there is a very, very valuable commission. The United States and the various countries of Europe have commissions, and I believe that Canada should follow suit in this respect. Then, my hon. friend says, why do you not appoint the commission and why do you not proclaim the act? The act will be proclaimed when we are ready to appoint the commission. We could not proclaim the act without appointing the commission immediately.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Have there been any refusals to take these jobs?


Ernest Lapointe: No refusals, no. But I do not want to consider very much too-pressing applications for appointments to the commission. I think rather that we are trying to find the men without the men offering themselves for the work.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister will find plenty of men who want the jobs.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend will say that the war is made responsible for all sorts of things, but I tell him in all sincerity that the war has something to do with this matter. At least a couple of men whom I had in mind for appointments on the commission are actually doing war work.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Any ladies?


Ernest Lapointe: No. I have not thought about that, but if my hon. friend is making a serious suggestion, perhaps I may consider it.


Gordon Graydon: I was just asking a question.


Ernest Lapointe: No; I myself have not thought about it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That suggestion is settled, then, is it?


Ernest Lapointe: I think my hon. friend will agree with me that it is better not to appoint the commission now than to have members who would not be qualified' for the work.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If you are going on.


Ernest Lapointe: If I can find suitable men for the job, even during the war, the commission will be appointed. That is the reason why I am still putting the item in the estimates. Unless, however, we are satisfied that we have the proper men to act on the commission, it is better to wait until our man power is not so much in demand as it is to-day. That is the only reason which has prevented the appointment of the commission. But I cannot accept the suggestion of my hon. friend and do away altogether with the proposal.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to ask the minister a question in connection with this matter. I understand that there is a separate vote for penitentiaries, and probably I can say what I have to say on that particular subject when we reach that item. Is there not some way whereby the minister's department can be consolidated? No living man could stand the strain of the department as it is set up and constituted to-day. The minister is carrying on all the work which in England is divided among three departments. There, the Home Secretary has charge of the institutions referred to by my leader. Another, the Lord Chancellor has charge of the Law Courts, and another department relates to the office of the Attorney General. Three separate ministers divide the work. In Canada the Minister of Justice is not only Minister of Justice, but also Attorney General of Canada; he is the chief law officer of the crown and home secretary in Canada; that is his second function. His third function is Minister of Justice, which means that he is administrative officer of all justice in the country. He appoints the superior and county court judges. In England they have been discussing a report of a committee of the House of Commons to create a department of justice to handle all these matters, and a book by R. M. Jackson, on the machinery
Supply-Justice

of justice in England, which book came out last month and is in the library, deals with this problem.
In the present situation in Canada the Minister of Justice has not any time to attend to one of the main questions which Canada has to consider, relative to four unsolved problems- constitutional, cabinet, law and parliamentary reform, long overdue in this country and only talked about. I say the minister has no time whatever to attend to that, and one cannot expect him to do it. I wonder how, even with his fine ability, he has stood the strain as well as he has.


Ernest Lapointe: Thank you.


Thomas Langton Church: I would, however, suggest to him that during the parliamentary recess some consideration should be given to the important subject of law, cabinet, parliamentary and constitutional reform in Canada, because we are away behind the times. Al-thought the present minister may know much more about the matter than I do, I believe he, as head, could divide this burden with others. There should be one minister responsible solely for the administration of justice in all four items but with more help. The present minister should be assisted by an attorney general, who would appear in the law courts and undertake duties of that sort. Then, the kind of work performed by the department of the Home Secretary in England has become in Canada a very large and important part of the Department of Justice with its large detail of administration. We have had a report on this matter by a very good commission on prison reform, but the report has not yet been consummated. That part of the report about the Borstal system should be dealt with, and a great part of the recommendations contained in the report should be carried out at once, war or no war.
At the present time the administration of the department must necessarily devolve upon deputies who should get reforms under way. The head of the department, the minister, who visits various places and appoints staff has considerable work to do unless he has ample assistance. I suggest that in the recess the minister should endeavour to bring about some form of consolidation whereby deputies or other ministers might be appointed to take care of the various aspects of the work of the department.
One matter I would mention in connection with the branch of the department that has jurisdiction over law reform is the appointment of judges. More care should be taken. Many judges to-day leave the bench for

months and even for a year or two, to engage in commission work in the provinces. This runs into large sums of money, and their judicial duties have to be carried out by others. I had a bill before the house a few years ago to provide that any judge who might be appointed on any commission, political or otherwise, should first vacate his judgeship. While they are on such work, away from their judicial duties, others must take their place, and work becomes congested because a salary is provided in the estimates for each of them.
With regard to the report to which I have already referred respecting machinery of government, laid before the British House of Commons and the House of Lords, the appointment of judges would be transferred to the Lord Chancellor who would have power to consult a committee, including the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and others.
I suggest that something should be done to relieve the congestion that exists in the courts as a result of the absence of judges from sickness and other causes-and there is at times considerable congestion in some provinces.
The chief constables' association has laid many matters before the government. For one thing it has proposed the abolition of air rifles. On a street car the other day on Bathurst street a woman was sitting near a window when a shot from an air gun came through the window and struck her, nearly blinding one eye and it might have blinded the other had her head been turned that way. I hope the government will adopt the recommendation of the association in this regard and prevent the manufacture of air guns and ban them.
Different bills have been introduced into this house having for their purpose various amendments to the criminal code in order to bring about much needed improvements in motor vehicular traffic. I hope that the minister will seriously consider adopting some of these proposals and that some definite action will be taken during the recess. I do not wish to see any member of this house knocked down by any hit-and-run driver. There is an awful slaughter on the highways to-day. I hope that the department will broaden its functions to provide some remedy for the present situation, because the slaughter is almost as bad as the destruction of life in war. Every roadway is turned red, and the loss of life is deplorable and one of Canada's scandals.
The rule has been laid down that the Attorney General of Canada should not be asked to offer legal opinions in the house, and I commend the present minister for his observance of that rule. I only regret that

Supply-Justice
the attorneys general of some of our provinces, instead of adopting a similar attitude, have seen fit to give a great many opinions on various matters. The subject matters may come before the law courts and the attorneys general are judicial officers.
Another amendment which I should like to see the department introduce is with regard to juries, to provide, for instance, that the judge shall enter verdict without any comment, because the functions of the judge and the jury are clearly defined. I trust that the jury system will not be interfered with in the code, because it has done good work and is badly needed at the present time.
Another matter to which I might refer is the question of appeals to the privy council. The former member for St. Lawrence-St. George had a bill before this house for the abolition of such appeals, and the matter went to the supreme court. I hope the bill will be left in abeyance. Appeals to the privy council are one link we hold within the empire. Under the Supreme Court Act I should like to see a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada of a bill I introduced to provide that the judges in this country shall follow the decisions of his majesty in his privy council. The case on marriage laws here came up and a decision was given on validity. This has been supported by Chief Justice Greenshields of Quebec, a very able judge, who laid down that they are legal and no canon law should upset them, I have no doubt that if there were an appeal on a question of law to the Supreme Court of Canada under the Supreme Court Act, they would establish the decision of Mr. Justice Greenshields as the law of this country long overdue. The courts are subservient to the legislature, and it is the duty of judges to interpret the law as it stands, as it is found in the textbooks and the authorities and by the court of last resort, the privy council, one court where a litigant is always sure of substantial justice. I submit that the department should come to some decision in this matter. Many requests have been made to have such an appeal taken. The minister, after all, has a function to perform as Attorney General to enforce the law and clear up the law.
In passing, may I request the right hon. gentleman's attention for a moment as Minister of Justice. I see the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) in conversation with him. I do not like to interrupt them, but I suggest that the subject I am discussing at the moment is of sufficient importance to call for a little of the minister's undivided attention for a few minutes. Yesterday, humorously he was talking about some of the
"N.G.s" on this side. I was not one selected for the minister's team by him of the "N.G.s" "N.G." means "no game," "no goal," "no guts," "no girl," no anything you like. I hope my good friend the hon. member for Parkdale did not go over to get on the Minister of Justice team to tell him what "N.G." means, and how to play if he gets on the team, because the minister has a keen sense of good humour.
I would ask in all seriousness that the minister state a case to be referred to the supreme court in order to determine that question of law, that judges shall follow the decisions of his majesty in his privy council, because the decisions of the privy council in London are binding on all the courts of this country in every province.
I have already referred to the question of motor car accidents, but the situation to-day is so serious that I refer to it once again by way of emphasis. I hope the minister will seriously consider an amendment that will give us a real remedy. Why, fifty-four soldiers, some by hit-and-run drivers, have been knocked down and killed in the various military districts in one year. I do not want to see the minister himself knocked down, but I know he has been in danger himself. I saw him walking in front of the Rideau club one day and he had a close shave. He may not have seen the car of which he might easily have been a victim. I should not like to see the hon. member for Parkdale or the Prime Minister, or the leader of the opposition or the learned Minister of Pensions run any risks, because they do not step as lively as they used to, nor do any of us sometimes.
It is impossible for the Minister of Justice efficiently to discharge his duties unless he is given additional help along the lines I have suggested, namely, on the judicial and the administrative sides and in connection with work similar to that done in England by the Home Secretary.
Many recommendations have been made with regard to amendments to the code, and I do hope that something will be done to implement some of the most urgent of them. I think the minister is to be commended for bringing down his estimates so early in the session, so that judges and others in authority may have an opportunity to express themselves with regard to any statutory amendments that may be contemplated. The department is a very good one; there is an active minister, and I hope that during the recess he will take these suggestions into consideration.
Canada is away behind the times in law reform. It has been talked of for twenty-
Supply-Justice

five years. They have accomplished it in England; as a result of the Summary Offenders Act they closed up half the prisons in England. In Canada, law reform is discussed only by the bar at its conventions, but it should be the most important work of this house in committee.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to ask the minister a question, following what my leader said in reference to the report upon which the minister had made suggestions a few years ago. At that time there was a good deal of talk about instituting in the penitentiaries of Canada some means of reform along the lines of the Borstal system that has shown such splendid results in England.
In speaking on the question a few years ago, I referred to my own survey of the penitentiaries of England and the fine things I saw as a result of that system. Has anything along that line been incorporated in the administration of the Canadian penitentiaries?


Ernest Lapointe: This was one of the important matters that were left for the consideration of the commission when appointed, and that is the reason why really nothing has been done. If we ever come to the conclusion that no commission should be appointed, this matter will have to be considered. But I still hope to give effect to the recommendations of the report and have the commission appointed, and that system which my hon. friend has discussed in the house on some occasions and of which I know personally he has made a special study, put into effect as far as possible.


Mr. BRUCE:: I should like to suggest
publicly, as I was doing privately to the Minister of Justice, that this matter of appointing commissioners, involving considerable expenditure, might very well be left over until after the war.
Second, may I say that I personally have had some experience in making a report, and although in my case the report was not approved publicly, twenty-four of my recommendations out of twenty-five were put into effect. I think, therefore, that the Minister of Justice could very well implement many of the recommendations of the report even in advance of the appointment of the commissioners.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I cannot support that point of view at all. It seems to me an oversimplification to say that the bill setting up the penitentiaries commission was purely a sop to the former member for Grey-Bruce. It is true that the former member

for Grey-Bruce and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) were both enthusiastic advocates of penitentiary reform. But there were hundreds of people, penologists and others interested in the penal problem in Canada, who for years had been pressing upon the government, both the former government and this one, the need for setting up a commission to institute modern methods of dealing with people who had broken the law and were in need of a new adaptation to society. We in this group were most enthusiastic when the government finally did bring down the bill to set up this commission. Whether there is a war on or not, this country can fight it efficiently and vigorously only as it has behind it a solidified state, and at the core of any state there lies its judiciary and its method of dealing with the malcontent and people who have broken the laws and have come under the punishment of the state.
No one has suggested that, as a war measure, we should reduce this huge sum being paid to judges, over $2,000,000, or the $300,000 being paid in pensions. If we are going to take care of one end of the law, we must also take care of the other. If we are going to spend money to try men and put them away where they can do no harm, we must also be prepared for the sake of the state to take care of these men when they come out of prison, and help them to make a proper adaptation, get back into society and play a part in the Canada that is to be w-hen this war is over.
Someone suggested $24,000 for salaries alone for the commission. That sum or ten times that sum, if necessary for administration and so on, will be a small amount compared with what we may pay for failing to do something about penal conditions in Canada.
I was very glad to hear the minister say that the government have no intention of discarding the bill and that they do intend to follow through with the appointment of the commission. I hope the minister will continue along that course; that it will not be long until the necessary men are found and the commission set up, so that something along the lines of the Borstal system as it has operated so successfully in England can be set up in Canada and we begin to do something for that section of our society which has been too long neglected and overlooked.


Howard Charles Green: When this item of departmental administration was up for consideration in the 1940 session, I asked the Minister of lustice if he would give consideration to the appointment of a solicitor general, to be in ;harge particularly of the administration of

Supply-Justice
the defence of Canada regulations. At that time I pointed out, what the minister so clearly indicated this afternoon, that the administration of these regulations is based upon ministerial responsibility rather than judicial responsibility. It seemed to me then, and it does now, that it might be better if there were a minister of the crown whose sole or principal duty it would be to administer those regulations. Of course there are probably fewer cases now going through than there were last year, so the work is not so heavy. Has consideration been given to that suggestion, and, if so, has any decision been reached?


Ernest Lapointe: Consideration has certainly been given to the suggestion of my hon. friend. Of course that would mean an enlargement of the cabinet. Personally I think it is not absolutely essential that another man should be appointed to do this work. As my hon. friend says, the number of cases rather decreases because most of those who were under suspicion or to be interned have already come under the supervising control of the department. If, however, the work really justifies the course suggested by my hon. friend, I should be only too pleased to divide the work, but although I thank the hon. member for Broadview for his kind words and solicitude about my health, I am not as bad as I look.
With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Broadview, in England not three but four ministers do the work that is done by the Minister of Justice here. They include the Home Secretary, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Lord Chancellor, who appoints the judges and is responsible for them. But we must not forget that in England they have not a federal system, while we have nine provinces, with nine attorneys general and nine departments concerned with the administration of justice, which certainly makes a difference in the work that has to be done by the Minister of Justice in Canada. I will, however, still consider the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Howard Charles Green: I would not want the minister to take it that I was questioning his judgment in these cases; I do not think anyone in the house questions that. It is simply a question whether it is physically possible for the minister, with his many other duties, to review each of these cases in detail.
In connection with the internment camps I notice that the return filed by the minister some days ago covering internments under regulation 21 from November 1, 1940, to February 17, 1941, divides them into four classes; Germans, Italians, communists and National Unity party. I do not know whether the one from the National Unity party is exMayor Houde of Montreal, or under which classification he comes. Could the minister tell us how many people there are in internment camps at the moment, divided into these classes or in any other way he wishes, and also how many women have been interned? Last year I think only two women were interned, one German and one Italian. I should like to know how many are interned at the moment, and the class in which they come.


Ernest Lapointe: I will
try to have that information when the resolution discussed earlier this afternoon comes up for further consideration. I must say, however, that after having laid on the table of the house the statement to which my hon. friend has just referred, I found that in it I had gone beyond the recommendations of the committee. I was requested only to give the number of internments and the number of cases in which the Minister of Justice had declined to accept the recommendations of the committees. I am not quite sure that it is in the public interest that the classification I gave should have been given. If, however, I can amplify what has been stated already, certainly I will do so. So far as the number of people interned is concerned, certainly that can be given, together with the number of women, and I will have that information available.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister tell us
whether or not any internees have been released without a recommendation on the part of the committee?


Ernest Lapointe: None.


Mr. McCANN:: I have just one or two
observations to make in connection with these estimates. First, I should like to commend the Minister of Justice for having included in the estimates an appropriation to set up the penitentiaries commission. The criticism that this is a sop to the former member for Grey-Bruce is not well founded. By inference that means that it is a sop to a number of other people in this house and throughout the country who were interested in penitentiary reform. I am quite sure the leader of the opposition would not be quite so brave in the presence of the former member for Grey-Bruce as he has attempted to be this afternoon. After all, if the provisions of the Penitentiary Act, 1939, are implemented, the will of parliament will be carried out. That
Supply-Justice

act was placed upon, the statute books of this country by the representatives of the people, and if it is not implemented or if the government intimated that they did not intend to implement it, I am quite sure that there would be a storm of protest from one end of this country to the other, and that the agitation for penitentiary reform which was carried on prior to the enactment of this bill would start all over again.
The minister has said that men capable of carrying on such administration may not be immediately available. Be that as it may, however, there are, I am sure, plenty of other men capable of carrying on the work of this commission. I do not believe it is a job for one man; it is not a job for a superintendent of penitentiaries. When the bill was under discussion a year or two ago, I expressed my views on the matter, after studying some of the penitentiaries of this country. At that time I pointed out that if there was to be reform, it must start in other places. It is not my intention to reiterate those opinions to-day but I do make a plea for the men who are in the penal institutions of this country. Give them a chance to learn a trade; give them a chance to be rehabilitated when they leave these institutions. At this time, when great numbers of men will be lost to the country, it is more important than ever before that we attempt this rehabilitation.
So, Mr. Chairman, I say I am pleased that the minister has included in the estimates an amount to provide for the setting up of the commission, and I hope that before long his opinions will find concrete endorsation.
Mr. ADAMSON; When civilians are interned in Canada, do they come under the director of internment operations or under some other body?


Ernest Lapointe: They come under the director of internment operations and I have nothing to do with them. They come under the Secretary of State, and under the Minister of National Defence so far as guarding the camps is concerned. The only thing I have to do is to review their appeals when they come to me.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: The report of the penitentiary commission was one of the finest reports ever handed down anywhere as far as penal administration is concerned. While I appreciate the argument that at this time of war it might not be practicable to set up the commission as such because of the expenditure that would be involved, I would suggest to the minister that many recommendations that were made by the commission which dealt

with the administration of the various penitentiaries, should be put into effect. Many of those recommendations have not been carried into effect, with the result that there has been a continuing undercurrent of resentment among some of the staffs in penitentiaries at the failure of the government to carry into effect the recommendations made. Would the minister be good enough to outline to the committee what recommendations made, in so far as internal administration in the various penitentiaries is concerned, were in fact carried into effect?


Ernest Lapointe: Of course I have not those documents here. I believe last year I gave to the committee a list of the changes made, and the regulations made following recommendations of the commission.


John George Diefenbaker: But since last year, what?


Ernest Lapointe: I shall try to find out, and, let my hon. friend know.


Thomas Langton Church: What becomes of all these applications made by the bar association and the police constables' association to the Minister of Justice advocating law reform? I do not wish to criticize the minister, but I have watched his department for many years and it seems to me it suffers because of its failure to follow what a statesman in England said of the Home Office-"the swing of the pendulum in the matter of law reform." Modern reforms have been brought about in England, and have led to the closing of some institutions and a decrease in the cost of the administration of justice.
Dear knows, if ever there was a time we should follow the pendulum, it is now. As I understand it, bills proposed by private members, whether for regulations respecting motor cars, or for some other wise amendments to the statute law, are referred by the department to the attorneys general of the provinces. What have those attorneys general to do with federal law? Under section 91 of the British North America Act the federal parliament has exclusive jurisdiction in matters of this kind. Nevertheless, if any amendment to the law is proposed, it is immediately referred to the attorneys general. Federal power is at a low ebb when that is done, and I say that that power should lead in law reform for all the provinces, if federal power would only assert itself.
I have in my hand a report of a speech made by Mr. Wedgwood, a Labour member in the English House of Commons. Referring to the same principle, and addressing his observations on law reform to the new Home Secretary, he said:

Supply-Justice
One of the difficulties we have to face in this house at the present time is that we no longer change about-the Conservative government five years, the Liberal government five years and the Labour government five years. There is no adequate excuse for any change of policy. Home secretary follows home secretary, not exactly with the same government but with the same general policy of their predecessors, with the result that a policy worked up by the permanent officials becomes more and more powerful. You do not get a rebel going to the home office and saying: "I will change that." He accepts the policy of the officials. In fact, we in this country are getting to a state in which, owing to the absence of the swing of the pendulum, we have a form of papal infallibility. The lord president of the council issues a decree about the internment of all the aliens. A new "pope" comes along, with all the body of the cardinals around him in his office, and checks any tendency to deviate from the rules laid down by his predecessors.
We are getting in the home office the most conservative body of doctrine and officials, all basing themselves on what has been said and done in the past. There is no chance of breaking away.
As I see it, the minister in the Department of Justice must break away from what has been done, or in some other way bring in reforms. Law reform is a very important matter for Canada to-day. I would suggest that the minister be good enough during the recess to consider the suggestions I have indicated and adopt them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What happens to the funds of organizations declared to be illegal? I have in mind for instance a case of hardship which has been brought about through an organization known as Jehovah's Witnesses. The question as to the advisability of banning or not banning their operations may be considered when we discuss further the motion to set up the committee to consider the defence of Canada regulations.


Ernest Lapointe: I am
afraid the hon. member will have to wait until the estimates of the Secretary of State are before the committee. I have nothing to do with the point which has been raised. The custodian of enemy property is in charge of those matters.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Have they any money?


Ernest Lapointe: Some of them have.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the minister mean that in the event of a Canadian citizen in Canada lending money to, let us say, Jehovah's Witnesses, and in the event of the banning of that organization, his money will go to the custodian of enemy property?


Ernest Lapointe: As a
trustee, until the war is over, or the matter is disposed of. The money is not confiscated.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have in mind the case of a man who lent a large sum of money to the organization known as Jehovah's Witnesses. They were paying him back at the rate of so much a month, or on an annuity basis. His entire livelihood is now cut off because he is told that his money is tied up with the custodian of enemy property. All this has come about because he lent his money to an organization which this government decided after the beginning of the war, was illegal. I believe that is most unfair.


Ernest Lapointe: A situation of that kind would be controlled by the defence of Canada regulations, and they are to be revised by the committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am pleased to have that information from the minister.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the item carry?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; do
not be in a hurry. We have just begun.


Ernest Lapointe: Three
hours on one item!


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is
the general item, and debate is always expected on it.


Gordon Graydon: I have not read the report of the penitentiaries commission for some time, but if my memory serves me correctly, there was a recommendation contained therein for the centralization of executions in Canada. In any event, some recommendation of that kind has been made, although I may be wrong when I suggest it was made in the report of the commission.
There is a feeling in many parts of Ontario-


Ernest Lapointe: That is under provincial jurisdiction.


Gordon Graydon: -that some move should be made toward the centralization of executions in that province. In January of this year we had the first hanging in the county of Peel for the last thirty-five years.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Not enough.


Gordon Graydon: The man who was hanged came from Toronto. In any event, the feelings which are aroused, especially among the children, is something which I believe should be seriously considered. For some days prior to the execution, rumours fly thick and fast, and there is a good deal of talk, particularly among the children, about it. I do not think that sort of thing should be permitted in these days. I would suggest to the Minister of Justice that if anything can be done to centralize executions in Canada, in places
Supply-Justice

where they would not be carried out so publicly, it would be a worthy service to the country at large.


Ernest Lapointe: We have found out, of course, that that is entirely under provincial jurisdiction. The administration of justice is within the control of the provinces. That is why the matter of law reform, to which the hon. member for Broadview has referred, has not been dealt with more particularly. We enact the criminal law; but criminal trials, criminal courts, sheriffs and matters of that kind are under the control of the provinces.
That applies equally to executions. I have at times received from gentlemen who were applying for the position of hangman in Canada, letters specifying that they were strong and physically able to do the job and were not afraid of carrying out executions. Of course, I had to answer that I had nothing to do with the matter. The sheriff of the district where the execution is to take place is the man who is responsible. He makes arrangements with someone who is known to be an official executioner, and the sheriff takes care to apply immediately to make sure that he will get his man, because if he does not get an executioner he must do the work himself. But this is just to say that we have absolutely nothing to do with that matter.
There is another side to the question raised by my hon. friend. One of the reasons for capital punishment, whatever opinion we may have upon that method, is its deterrent effect upon the community. It has been felt for a long time that it was a good thing that the execution, if an execution had to take place, should be in the very district where the crime had been committed, that its deterrent effect was thereby the greater. I express no opinion myself, but that is the situation behind the state of things which exists to-day.


Mr. MARTIN:: It may be necessary to have the executions take place in Peel.


Gordon Graydon: I suggest in reciprocation that the central place of execution be Windsor.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is another point of view. W'hen this matter came before the public a few years ago, it was suggested that all executions in the maritime provinces should take place in the town of Dorchester, where the penitentiary is. The people of that community revolted at the idea of their town being made a Golgotha. I think they are right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
fMr. Graydon.]
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
88.	Remission service, including remuneration to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force (to be expended under order in council, and not to exceed $1,600) for assistance to this service, and an amount of $10,900 to reimburse the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force the amounts disbursed by them in ordinary pay and allowances to their men on loan to this service, $50,000.
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Are applications for remissions dealt with direct by Ottawa, or does the minister have anything to do with the attorneys-general's departments of the province?


Ernest Lapointe: It is
dealt with by Ottawa.


James Arthur Ross: In the matter of the reduction or remission of a sentence, does it come direct to and is it dealt with by Ottawa, or does this department have any communication with the provincial attorneys-general's departments before making a decision?


Ernest Lapointe: No. We usually ask for a report from the judge who sentenced the man, and from the warden of the penitentiary or the prison, as the case may be, in order to have every particular about the man.


Thomas Langton Church: May I ask the minister a question in connection with the mounted police? As a result of the war and some other conditions, in the cities the administration of many federal acts elsewhere administered by the mounted police devolves upon the city police commissions. They are an auxiliary and a helper of that great force. Would it not be possible for the minister to put in the estimates a sum to compensate the municipalities which are doing all this federal work for nothing? The war has placed a big responsibility upon the municipalities. It was intended that the enforcement of all federal law should be on the federal authority, but it is on the provincial attorneys general, who simply delegate it over to the police systems of the country, and the cities have to maintain a large body of men to do federal work. I forget how many statutes apply to the cities, but their enforcement costs a very large sum of money. I think the time has come when there should be some revision of this relationship, whereby our police systems would receive some subsidy.


Ernest Lapointe: I would ask hon. members kindly to wait until the item concerning the mounted police comes up, and I shall have an officer here to supply me with

Supply-Justice
the details. But I must say to my hon. friend that, as far as I can judge, the situation is the other way round. I think the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is doing more to help the provincial and municipal police than the latter are doing in the way of mounted police work.


Mr. STIRLING:: Would the minister kindly explain what this rather long paragraph of item 88 means, and particularly the latter part of it?


Ernest Lapointe: This is the remission service, which is charged with the administration of the Ticket of Leave Act. Applications for tickets of leave come to that branch, and involve a very large amount of work. As far as the last part of the item is concerned, we are employing a few men of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to do some work which was previously being done by regular employees of the department. This we are doing on account of their special qualifications, and we have to reimburse the mounted police in the amount of their salaries.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That covers one part. It is the second item I notice on page 89 of the estimates, where the details are. One is $1,600 for remuneration, the other is for reimbursement. Is there any distinction?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. The reimbursement is to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So is the other. If the minister has not the explanation available, I am not going to pursue the matter.


Ernest Lapointe: I am unable to say what the distinction is between the item of $1,600 for remuneration and the item of $10,900 for reimbursement.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I notice that this $1,600 is to be expended under order in council. I suppose it is just a sum, in special cases, for-


Ernest Lapointe: No doubt about that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: While I am on my feet, I might say that this $1,600 must be some special remuneration which is doled out to the mounted police for special services, under order in council.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, for assistance. I am sorry I have not any more information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who is the present senior advisory counsel?


Ernest Lapointe: It is Mr. Gallagher.


Richard Burpee Hanson: One lawyer in the branch does the whole of the work?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. The present private secretary is an officer of that branch, but actually he is not working there because he is acting as private secretary to the minister. He is a lawyer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would
the minister say whether in capital cases he reads the evidence himself?


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like the minister to explain just how careful the department is in capital cases.


Ernest Lapointe: In capital cases, of course, the officers of the branch are very, very careful and particular about that special part of their work. Not only one of the officers under Mr. Gallagher, but Mr. Gallagher himself reads the evidence and he underlines all the parts which ought to be called to the attention of the minister. In cases where it is the recommendation of the officers of the branch that the law should take its course, of course it is the duty of the minister himself to read the evidence and to convince himself that that is the report which should be made to council. When the recommendation is for clemency, I always read the parts of the evidence which are specially brought to my attention, but I do not feel under the same sort of imperative duty to read every word, to look at every comma of the evidence, because the recommendation is that the law should not take its course.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Is this the procedure which is followed also in connection with applications which come to the department for the parolling of prisoners?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That procedure is followed in connection with applications for parole?


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, yes. Everything comes to the minister after having been considered and studied by the officers of the branch, and after communications having been received from the various persons to whom they have applied for reports, more particularly the judge, sometimes the crown prosecutor, always the warden, as to what the conduct of the prisoner is, and, in some instances, the medical officer when the question arises.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Justice
[Stage Direction]
89.	Administration of Justice-miscellaneous expenditure, $6,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What is this?


Ernest Lapointe: This is the cost of the administration of justice in the northwest territories to cover such matters as trials of Eskimos.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
90.	Expenses of litigated matters, $25,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this the usual vote?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How much
has been spent?


Ernest Lapointe: It varies from year to year. In 1936-37 it was $57,328; in 1937-38, $24,283; in 1938-39, $21,473; and in 1939-40, last year, it was $12,000 odd. The average estimated expenditure is $25,000, but only half of it was spent last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
91.	Annual contribution to the Canadian law library, London, England, $500.
(S) Attendance judicial committee of the privy council, R.S.C., chap. 105, $3,000.
Supreme Court of Canada-
(S) Judges salaries, $87,000.
Administration, $71,180.
Richard Burpee Hanson: The item of $3,000 is marked statutory. I do not think it is quite in that category. It is provided under a statute, but the statute is entirely permissive. Section 22 of the Judges Act provides that the governor in council may pay the expenses of travelling and living while in attendance, in a sum not exceeding $3,000, to a member of his majesty's privy council who is eligible to be a member of the judicial committee and who attends any sitting thereof. What is the situation at the present time with regard to the hearing of appeals by the judicial committee? Are they hearing appeals?


Ernest Lapointe: They are hearing appeals, but not many Canadian litigants are taking advantage of it. We have cases which have been postponed until after the war. I have in mind a couple of cases with the government of Ontario. The committee is, however, sitting. The amount is put in the estimate, but I have the conviction that the chief justice will not go this year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have in our own office two cases which are in exactly the same position. There is nothing to prevent people from going to the old country and having appeals heard.


Ernest Lapointe: Absolutely nothing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no suspension?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
92.	Administration-Exchequer Court of Canada-judges salaries and travelling allowances of admiralty judges, $24,800.
Mr. BROOKS:: I understand there is a vacancy in the king's bench division in New Brunswick through the resignation of the chief justice. As the minister no doubt knows, the chief justice has been ill for a number of years and has not been able to discharge his duties on the bench. Mr. Justice Le Blanc has had other work to do in connection with the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and considerable work has been piling up on the king's bench. May I ask when an appointment will be made? May we expect one soon, and does the minister feel constrained to tell us whom he has in mind for the appointment?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is asking a little too much. Perhaps I am doing my bit in the field of economy by waiting before filling the vacancy. There is another vacancy in Canada. There are only two vacancies on the bench, one in New Brunswick and another in Manitoba. I have made investigations and have been informed that the work is not suffering at all. There has been a great decline in litigation in all the provinces, so much so that I was told by the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada that for the first time since the court was established there was, at the last term, not a case from my own province. Therefore litigants are not very active anywhere, and so long as we do not appoint a judge either in New Brunswick or in Manitoba, we have no salary to pay. That is an economy. My hon. friend may be sure that if it appears to me or if I am informed that an appointment is necessary, I shall see to it that one is made. As to who the appointee will be, I respectfully decline to tell my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not quarrelling with the minister's decision to save the salary of the king's bench judge. May I point out the exact position in New Brunswick. Years ago we had a bench of five or six members-a chief justice, a judge in equity and the others on circuit. They all met and formed a court en banc and no judge sat on appeal from his own decision. Subsequently, about thirty years ago, they decided to change the procedure, and they formed three divisions of the court.

Supply-Justice


Ernest Lapointe: The province did it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes. There was the king's bench, consisting of four judges who did circuit work; there was the chancery division, consisting of the chief justice and two associate justices; the chancery judges formed the appeal division; and in case of an appeal from one of their decisions, the chief justice of the king's bench was called in. Owing to the decline in litigation, the number of appeals has decreased remarkably-there is no doubt about that-and the judges of the chancery division have very little work to do, so little that one of them has been lent to the government in connection with one of the taxation measures passed last year. I am sure he is at the present time doing useful work there.


Ernest Lapointe: It is one of the appeal courts.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is a
member of the chancery division and the appeal court. With regard to the kings bench division, the chief justice of that division has not heard a case for three years, and he has now resigned. Mr. Justice Le Blanc has in recent years been doing all the work under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, with the result that there have been only two king's bench judges active in the trial of cases; and until very recently I know they were very busy, and in arrears. The whole position in New Brunswick is top-heavy and ought to be rearranged. I quite realize that this is a matter entirely for the province. If they were to create new positions in New Brunswick they would expect this government to make the appointments and pay the salaries of those appointed, I think negotiations ought to be entered into with the government of New Brunswick to effect some permanent, savings there, because the judges on the court of appeal do not have enough to do; make no mistake about that. As a matter of fact, at the last session of that court, opened the other day, there was just one case on the docket. Imagine paying three judges gross salaries of $28,000 a year with a term of the court having just one case! The situation is ridiculous. We are top-heavy.
I think the same thing is in a measure true of the county court bench. There are too many county court judges, six in that little province, drawing $5,000 a year salary and travelling expenses. Here is a case where there could be a substantial saving. I do not suggest that the government should ask the province of New Brunswick to pass legislation eliminating any of the judges now
living; but as these men die or are pensioned off, having arrived at the age of seventy-five, the government might very well reduce the number. That would not be pleasing to some of the boys I know, I do not care what political complexion they are, but it would be a good thing for the taxpayers of Canada. What is true of New Brunswick I fancy is true, perhaps in a lesser degree, of certain other provinces.
I am looking over these estimates and, if I am correct, there are sixty-five county court judges in Ontario. Is that correct?


Ernest Lapointe: I
wonder.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It seems
an extraordinary number. Members of the bar from that province may say that some of those county court judges are exceedingly busy. There is no doubt of that, but I suggest that some of them have very little to do. In the interest of national economy in war time, I suggest to the minister that he take this matter up, at least with the province of New Brunswick.


Ernest Lapointe: I have
no doubt the remarks of my hon. friend will be heard-


Richard Burpee Hanson: In New
Brunswick.


Ernest Lapointe: -in New Brunswick.


Thomas Langton Church: How many admiralty
judges are there at present in Ontario?


Ernest Lapointe: Only
one.


Thomas Langton Church: What title have they?
In the past the admiralty judge in Ontario was a member of the high court of justice, and afterwards a county court judge was appointed. What title has he?


Ernest Lapointe: Judge in admiralty. I do not know whether he should be called "Mr. Justice." I have no objection, as far as I am concerned,


Thomas Langton Church: We had an admiral in this high court of parliament; he has gone to another place now.


Ernest Lapointe: Is my hon. friend suggesting that we should give him an increase in salary?


Thomas Langton Church: I am wondering whether a lawyer appointed judge in admiralty is to be addressed as Mr. Justice. The admiralty court is a federal court. Supreme court judges have
Supply-Justice

held the office, county court judges would not be entitled to it, and surely a lawyer would be just "His Honour".


Thomas Vien: I would point out that this discussion has been out of order from the beginning, because the item under consideration is, "Administration, Exchequer Court of Canada," and most of the discussion has been with regard to provincial high courts.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Strictly
speaking, Mr. Chairman, you may be correct, but I ask for indulgence.


Thomas Vien: There should be some relation between the item and the discussion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Looking at page 95 of the estimates, I should like some information about pensions to judges. There does not seem to be any particular item under which we can discuss that. I am puzzled to know why Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, who was for many years a distinguished ornament of this house as Minister of Justice, and subsequently chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, should get only $6,666, while Mr. Justice Smith, who was a puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, gets $8,000, and my very learned friend Mr. Justice Mignault gets $12,000. I do not criticize the amounts, but I should like an explanation.


Ernest Lapointe: When Sir Charles Fitzpatrick retired to become lieutenant-governor of Quebec, he got the superannuation then fixed by law, two-thirds of his salary. The salary then was not what it has become since for the chief justice of the supreme court. In 1921, the salaries of the supreme court judges were increased to $12,000 for the puisne judges, and $15,000 for the chief justice. Then, in 1927 or thereabouts parliament enacted a law retiring the judges of the federal courts, namely, the Supreme Court of Canada and the exchequer court, compulsorily when they reached the age of seventy-five, but it was then enacted that those who had been appointed before this law came into force should retire at that age but with their full salary, because they had been appointed for life at that salary.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to point out that under a return brought down here the other day in answer to a question put on the order paper by the - hon. member for York East, Canada is paying this year for superannuation of retired judges, $307,133.30, a rather staggering sum.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. Of course there are the judges both of the Supreme Court of Canada and the exchequer court, and the judges of the various provincial

superior courts. When they are sick or unable to fulfil their duties, they retire with two-thirds of their salary. Then there are the county court judges all over Canada; when they are seventy-five years of age they have the right to retire with their full salary. When they retire because of illness before they are seventy-five years of age, they receive two-thirds of their salary. It does constitute a quite large amount when the total is shown.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is the law, anyway.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, it is the law.


Mr. WHITE:: The Minister of Justice has just pointed out that there has been a great decrease in the amount of litigation, especially in the Supreme Court of Canada. I notice that the salary of the registrar of the supreme court, which is a recent appointment, has been increased by $1,500. Will the minister please explain that, in view of his own statement?


Ernest Lapointe: Under the law, the salary of the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada is fixed by the governor in council and must not exceed $8,000. When the Beatty commission investigated the matter of the higher officers in the civil service, it classified the clerk of the House of Commons, the clerk of the Senate and the registrar of the supreme court together, because each had the rank of deputy minister, and recommended that the salary should be $7,500. Parliament acted accordingly with regard to the clerk of the House of Commons and the clerk of the Senate; their salaries were increased to $7,500, and now the salary of the registrar of the supreme court is placed on the same basis. Of course the registrar sits in chambers, hears motions and carries on a good deal of the procedure of that court; he has a large staff. I could not very well give effect to that recommendation during the last few years because the gentleman who occupied that position, who was a very good registrar, had reached the age where he should have retired, and each year I had to plead with the treasury board to extend his time for another year. In those circumstances I could not very well recommend an increase in salary. I think this is the right thing to do.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There may be something in what the minister has just said as to the reason for increasing this salary, but my recollection is that the Beatty report was made nearly twenty years ago.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, long anterior to 1930; I will put it in that way.

Supply-Justice


Ernest Lapointe: No. I have it here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then what
is the date?


Ernest Lapointe: February, 1930.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very well. In making an appointment after that, the government did not see fit to increase the salary to S7.500. A very competent man was found in the city of Ottawa who was willing to accept this position at $6,000, with free office, free staff, free everything; and I never heard any complaint at all about the work done by the former registrar for $6,000. To me it does seem a little strange that in war time we should increase this salary by 25 per cent. I am going to register a protest against the principle, and I shall have to leave it there.
I wish to point out to the committee and to the country that this is not economy in the normal activity of government in war time.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to support what has just been said by the leader of the opposition. During a time like this, when we are appealing to the people of Canada to make sacrifices and our people are making them, I think it is very difficult to justify an increase of 25 per cent in the salary of the registrar, who last year received S6,000. To me it seems that all these allowances are entirely out of line with what is being received by the great majority of the people of Canada, and I think this amount should be left as it was.


Mr. POULIOT:: Some months ago, when I saw some criticism with regard to the readjustment of the salary of the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada, I was very much surprised at the stand taken by some Tory members and especially by the Pickwickian leader of the opposition. Why single out this case, in which there is not an increase but a readjustment of salary, when we see all the promotions that have been made on the recommendation of the civil service commission throughout the various departments? Why single out this case? Is it because the present appointee was formerly a member of the Hepburn government, and the leader of the opposition wants to show his rancour towards Mr. Hepburn by criticizing one of his former colleagues? I wonder whether that is the reason. Why does the hon. gentleman not say something about Tories who have obtained promotions by being transferred from one department to another, men who are pests in some departments and who receive extravagant salaries? I would move that the salary of the leader of the opposition be
reduced to SI. He is just as efficient as the other dollar-a-year men, and he should be treated in the same way. I should like him to tell the committee why he has singled out this case, whether it is to satisfy his rancour against Mr. Hepburn and his government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
95.	Payments of gratuities to the widows or to any dependent children, of judges who die while in office, $15,000.
Gordon Graydon: Would the minister give us the particulars with regard to this item?


Ernest Lapointe: There is nothing in the law about it, but it is a tradition of very long standing that when a judge dies in office, an allowance or gratuity amounting to two months' salary is paid to his widow.


Richard Burpee Hanson: 
Ernest Lapointe: So far as I remember, the auditor general merely calls attention to the discrepancy. He does not suggest a change. As a matter of fact, it is a long standing practice, and was in operation long before I came to the department. Judges of the appeal court in Quebec travel from Quebec to Montreal and from Montreal to Quebec almost continuously. It is an arrangement which went on in years gone by between the chief justice and the Department of Justice whereby, instead of sending their bills for $10 a day, plus transportation expenses, they would be paid $25 for each trip to Montreal or to Quebec. I am told that it works rather to the advantage of the department, and that while the amount is less, the
Supply-Justice

judges like it better. It is not done strictly under the law, but it is an agreement which has been accepted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It has gained force of law through custom.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the same thing true of British Columbia?


Ernest Lapointe: The same thing between Victoria and Vancouver.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It grew up, just like Topsy.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Mr. HAZEN:: 
Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry I cannot give the information. Of course this amount does not need to be voted. It is statutory, and that is the reason why I have not the explanation. I can, however, supply it to my hon. friend at any time.


Thomas Langton Church: Under the British North America Act the dominion need pay only the salaries of high court, superior court and county court judges in the provinces. The payment of travelling expenses is an innovation. I doubt whether such payment could be justified under the British North America Act. The travelling expenses must be provided by the provinces for provincial courts and their constitution and administration. They provide the money for the expenses of division court and county court judges. The payment of travelling expenses is an innovation of recent years, and I suggest that the provinces should look after them.


Ernest Lapointe: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: 
Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Thomas Langton Church: I was a member of a
select committee of the House of Commons which considered judges' salaries and travelling and other allowances. That committee, which sat a few years ago, was presided over by Senator Duff, and the late W. A. Boys, who at that time was member for Antigonish-Guysborough. It was contended before that committee that allowances for travelling expenses should be paid by the provinces. 
Some of the judges appearing before the committee to present their case showed the cost accounts for the maintenance of their automobiles, and all that sort of thing. That select committee considered the functions of the dominion and the provinces, so far as judges and their expenses were concerned. It was urged that the dominion was obligated to pay only judges' salaries in federal and provincial courts. The Minister of Justice may appoint judges to the superior and county courts, but it is the duty and the function of the provinces to pay any outside allowances.
The board of transport commissioners should have some discretion in the matter. While the government cannot afford to pay a few dollars to carry the soldiers, yet it can afford over $2,000,000 for salaries and travelling allowances of judges.


Ernest Lapointe: Travelling expenses of judges of the superior and county courts, in carrying out the work of those courts, have to be paid by the federal parliament. In some provinces, judges of the county courts do outside work for the provinces. Even at this very session of the Ontario legislature a bill is being placed before the house for the purpose of paying travelling expenses of county court judges who may do provincial work outside the county court seats. We have declined to pay travelling expenses of judges who do that sort of work.


Gordon Graydon: It was a matter of some controversy in the committee.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Mr. GERSHAW:: Would the minister explain the procedure in the event of a county court judgeship becoming vacant? In my constituency the county court judge died a few years ago, and since that time no appointment has been made. Judges do come in, of course, but it is a great inconvenience not to have a resident judge. It is claimed, too, that the expenses come to about as much as the salary of a resident judge would be. What is the procedure to be followed?


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot speak accurately from memory, but I have a vague notion the government of Alberta suggested that this vacancy should not be filled, that there was not sufficient work, and that for purposes of economy the money might be saved. I shall, however, take the trouble to look into the matter so that I may reply more accurately.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has mentioned a considerable reduction in litigation during the last year, and a consequent reduction in the amount of work done by

Supply-Justice
the judges. In the western provinces the superior court judges also act as chairmen of the boards of review set up under the provisions of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Do they receive, as chairmen of boards of review, any additional salary over and above their statutory salaries?


Ernest Lapointe: No, they do not.


John George Diefenbaker: Any daily allowance, or anything of that sort?


Ernest Lapointe: Travelling
allowances.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I notice that there are 270 judges who are paid salaries and expenses to an amount over $2,000,000. I understand that from time to time they are engaged in other work. How many judges are engaged in that type of work at the present time, and what is the procedure in obtaining leave of absence from their regular duties?


Ernest Lapointe: The work is done by their colleagues on the same court. When, however, a judge is fully engaged doing his own judicial work, it is not the usual practice to appoint him to do some other work. Before appointing a judge to any commission, we make a practice to communicate with the chief justice and, in certain instances, the attorney general of a province, in order to ascertain whether a judge's services may be secured for the work we may have in mind.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How many are so acting at the present time?


Ernest Lapointe: I would not say offhand.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There are two right here in Ottawa.


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot say. Speaking roughly, I would say there are six or eight. For instance, there is one judge of the Manitoba bench who is on active service in England. I refer to Judge Montague. Then there is Judge Davis who is in the Department of National War Services. Mr. Justice Martin is acting as rent controller. Mr. Harrison of New Brunswick is also working hard. Mr. Justice McTague is much in demand; in fact, I have to object sometimes because he is taken away from his work on the appeal court bench in Ontario. He is a valuable member of the court and is doing great work wherever he is called, but that is no reason for having the willing horse do all the work.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would ask the minister about another situation that

sometimes arises under provincial legislation. I have in mind the case of a supreme court judge in one province who acted as sole arbitrator in an expropriation by a hydroelectric commission in a certain province. The case involved extensive litigation and ultimately went to the privy council. The clients whom I represented, so to speak, bought into this lawsuit in the course of the litigation. We were unwilling participants, but we had to see the thing through and pay the bills ultimately. This judge made his award and put the award in the bank. Then he notified counsel that when they had paid the bill they would get the award. The bill was for $3,500, and against my protest the bill was paid, the award being then released. What about a case like that? Is that not clearly outside the law?


Ernest Lapointe: I have no knowledge of the circumstances-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
stating a principle.


Ernest Lapointe: -and I would hesitate to give an opinion.


Thomas Langton Church: According to the details, provision is being made for twelve judges of the high court of justice for Ontario and for seven justices of appeal. Some of the judges of the high court of justice for Ontario and of the court of appeal are being engaged on commissions and in war work, and some are sick at times, with the result that there is often a scarcity of judges for the law courts, the twelve judges sometimes being reduced to eight. Has the minister not some regulation or control over that situation, or is it under provincial control? They are under the Attorney General of Canada, and we are being asked to provide $108,000 for these twelve judges. Who is going to do their work when they are engaged on commissions and in war work other than judicial work?


Ernest Lapointe: When they are appointed to a commission, that is only done after having communicated with their chief justice, and, in most instances, with the attorney general, to ensure that the work of the court does not suffer. The amount paid is the same.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Penitentiaries branch.
96.	Branch administration, $110,350.
Jean-François Pouliot: On March 2, 1939, I made some remarks on the establishment of the proposed penitentiaries commission, which remarks will be found at pages 1478-1481 of

Supply-Justice

Hansard of that session. I still maintain the same view that I then expressed, that the Minister of Justice himself can look after the penitentiaries better than any commission. He has done so in the past for a great many years and I have every confidence in him.
I do not see the necessity for any such commission; besides that, I have always been opposed to the establishment of managing or administrative commissions, and this would be one of them. The result of the work of most investigating commissions is to suggest the creation of an administrative commission, and once these administrative commissions are set up it is very difficult for members of the house to get information with regard to their work. That is the case with the broadcasting corporation, for example. I am therefore opposed to this proposed commission.
I am opposed to it also because I am interested in the welfare of the prisoners in the penitentiaries, provided that one is not too lenient with them, for, of course, when they are condemned by a court, it is not because of the good actions they have done. On the other hand, they are entitled to justice. The fact of their being condemned to the penitentiary does not deprive them of their citizenship or change them from being human beings. We must therefore see to it that they are treated fairly. Moreover, we should try to make good citizens out of them.
The way to keep control over the administration of our penitentiaries is to leave parliament free to inquire into their management. We can do so when the minister is head of the penitentiaries, but if that work was delegated to a commission it would be most difficult for members of the house to get any information about the penitentiaries. I do aot say that to contradict our respected and beloved Minister of Justice. I say it because I believe it and because also in the Liberal party we have the right to express our views freely. We are not rubber stamps, as the leader of the opposition very improperly suggested the other day in quite an offensive way. I do not know what member of the house or of this committee would call Jean-Frangois Pouliot a rubber stamp. Is he not a good Liberal? Once more the leader of the opposition was all wrong.
I hope the minister will take into consideration the views I have expressed. I remember that last year one of the bright members for Vancouver, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green)-he sits on the other side of the house but he is bright nevertheless- suggested that appointments should be made to the proposed penitentiaries commission. I fought against that. A year has since passed and no commission has been appointed, and I thank the minister from the bottom of my

heart for not having made any such appointments. I hope he will continue in the right way to have charge of the penitentiaries himself against all the hopes that may be expressed in another direction.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: I want the details with regard to the $750 "honorarium to acting superintendent for special additional services." To whom is that paid, and what is the nature of the service?


Ernest Lapointe: It is remuneration to the acting superintendent, and his salary is still less than he would receive if he had been appointed superintendent. No appointment has been made because of the intention to establish a commission of three members, and during the time that this is not being done the whole work of a superintendent is being performed by the assistant. This is to give him a little additional allowance for that extra work.


George Hugh Castleden: Where does his regular salary appear in these estimates?


Ernest Lapointe: It is the third item on page 93' under the title "penitentiaries branch, branch administration."


George Hugh Castleden: Inspectors?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. He is one of them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am glad to see that there is a very substantial saving in this item, and I duly offer my congratulations to the minister. I notice that there is one inspector less than a year ago, with a resultant saving of $3,420, and it is one of these two who is performing the duties of the superintendent of penitentiaries and to whom the government is giving an extra allowance of $750. I have no objection to that. He is the acting superintendent; what is his name?


Ernest Lapointe: Inspector Sauvant.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who are the others?


Ernest Lapointe: There are two. Another is on active service. The two are Inspector O'Leary and Inspector Shortt.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Penitentiaries branch.
97.	Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries, including administration, construction, purchase of land, supplies, equipment and livestock; maintenance, discharge and transfer of convicts; compensation to discharge of convicts permanently disabled while in penitentiaries, $2,912,685.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I notice
that the sum to be voted is exactly the same

Supply-Justice
as last year. Was that the amount spent last year? Does it vary, or is it a constant item?


Ernest Lapointe: I think
that is the amount which was spent last year. There is a decrease in the amount provided for the removal of prisoners from one penitentiary to another; but of course I told the treasury board, which has been very keen on reductions, that I was hoping that there would be no necessity for transference of convicts. If the need arises, we shall have to find a way of meeting the expense.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are employees of the administrative branch of the penitentiaries appointed by the civil service commission?


Ernest Lapointe: In the
administrative branch, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
about the guards? Are they selected by the warden?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, and by selective competition. There is an eligible list, and the warden selects these men


Richard Burpee Hanson: After
all, he is the main man in connection with
that?


Ernest Lapointe: He is the main man.


Mr. CASSELMAN (Grenville-Dundas):: Would the minister give us some information with respect to the last clause of this item, "compensation to discharged convicts permanently disabled while in penitentiaries"? What money has been paid in the last year under this item? I think the minister realizes why I am asking this. I believe that in the last two weeks he has received a request from a United States citizen who has a brother in Canada

whose name I do not wish to mention-who was permanently disabled while in a penitentiary in the vicinity of Montreal. I believe that some two or three years ago some money was paid to this man, and I understand his present condition is such that he requires continuous medical attention. At the present time he is, I believe, confined to Burwash penitentiary. I ask for this information with the object of enabling me to reply to the letter I have received. I endeavoured to see the minister to-day, but unfortunately was not able to meet him.


Ernest Lapointe: If my
hon. friend will kindly let me investigate this, I will give him all the particulars, and if it is possible to meet his wishes I shall be pleased to do so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it a
new item? I am speaking of compensation. I never saw it before, that I can recall.


Ernest Lapointe: It was
there before.


Mr. DUPUIS:: When this item last came
up I inquired from the minister if there were any chance for the guards in the penitentiaries to have their salaries reconsidered, and I was told that this question was under consideration by the department. I see that there are 198 guards at $1,500; ninety-four at $1,320; one at $1,305; nine at $1,290; 55 at $1,275; one at $1,260, and fifty-two at $1,200. Would the minister be good enough to tell me if those charged with reviewing thi? matter have made a change for the better? I submit to the committee that the function of a guard is a responsible one, and is hard to fulfil.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Many
people want to be guards.


Vincent Dupuis: Not many hon. members
know that these guards are on duty eleven consecutive hours, and they are bound to their duty on the wall. They have to stay there, walking on the wall, whatever may be the weather. Whether it rains or snows or fogs, they have to stay there and do their duty; and I may say, to the honour of this body of guards, that they are fulfilling their duties to the satisfaction of their superiors.
I am inclined to think that as soon as a man is appointed guard of a penitentiary, he should have equal treatment with the other guards, irrespective of the number of years of service.
I wonder whether the minister would consider the suggestion? Of course I cannot do anything in the way of moving an amendment because I am not entitled to do so, but I humbly suggest that the salary should be increased.
Moreover, I would point out to the minister that, for the good administration of this branch, it would be wise to reduce the hours. Eleven hours is a very long period of duty for a man assigned to such functions.
Although I am one of those who believe that in these terrible times we should not increase salaries unnecessarily, nevertheless I submit that this is a special case and should receive the best attention possible. I have in mind the position of the guards at the penitentiary at St. Vincent de Paul near Montreal. Twelve hundred dollars a year is not a very large salary when one considers that in these small towns very often the merchants, grocers and butchers form a combine to skin poor people, so that at the end
Supply-Justice

of the month they have hardly enough money to pay the expenses incurred by their families and to bring up their children as other citizens do. I am quite convinced that $25 a week is not enough. I make the suggestion in good faith hoping that the department and this committee will give it proper consideration. I trust that hon. members will express their views on the question and support the stand I have taken if they see fit to do so.


Mr. SHAW:: Will the minister explain the procedure followed and the nature and extent of the compensation paid to discharged convicts who have become permanently disabled while in the penitentiary?


Ernest Lapointe: There is no fixed mode of procedure. The compensation is arranged as fairly as possible, but there is no regular way of doing it.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Is the compensation deemed sufficient to enable the man to provide a living for himself?


Ernest Lapointe: It depends, of course, on the nature of the injury and the extent to which it renders the man incapable of earning his living after. We try to be as fair as possible.


George Hugh Castleden: Who decides that?


Ernest Lapointe: The
department does.


George Hugh Castleden: It comes from the department?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to ask the Minister of Justice a question, and in reply he can furnish me with personal information in writing afterwards. I should like to know the total amount that has been paid to Mr. Justice Newton Rowell from the time he resigned as a member of parliament to the time he was appointed to the bench, in the form of fees, advances


Ernest Lapointe: Suppose my hon. friend write me about the matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: -and travelling expenses as well as living allowance-everything paid him. I said to Mr. Bennett one day while he was Prime Minister, that this gentleman was well looked after, and Mr. Bennett replied, "You bet". I want to know, therefore, how much he has cost the country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am sure the minister cannot turn a deaf ear to the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Dupuis), but he can explain that, in addition to the salaries mentioned, these gentlemen get a good
fMr. Dupuis.]
many perquisites in the shape of free rent, fuel, light, meals, uniform and other things too numerous to mention.


Ernest Lapointe: I have no trouble in finding men to replace them when there are vacancies.


Vincent Dupuis: For the information of the leader of the opposition, I may say that the perquisites they receive are not as substantial as he suggests. If I mistake not, they must bring their lunch. Moreover, they do not all get free rent and I am sure most of them have to pay high rentals. There is only the matter of uniforms. Apart from that, I do not believe they receive much.


Arza Clair Casselman: I realize that the minister has not his deputy beside him and will therefore find it difficult to give definite information, but I should like to be given some information with regard to the item I referred to a minute ago, namely, the compensation that has been paid to discharged convicts permanently disabled while in penitentiaries, and the circumstances.


Ernest Lapointe: Does the superintendent know the name of the man to whom my hon. friend refers?


Arza Clair Casselman: I am not interested merely in one man. I should like to know whether there is a course of action in the department under which, when people suffer permanent injuries in these institutions, compensation is paid them. It is a question of policy.
I should like the minister to answer one more question. Let us say that a settlement has been made with an individual in the last four or five years. Is the minister going to take the stand that because the department has a release from this person, who may have undergone many mental tests to disclose what his capacity was, the possession of his signature is an end of the matter?


Ernest Lapointe: No; it depends on all the circumstances. I can promise my hon. friend that I will consider the matter as carefully as possible, and if the man has been treated unfairly I will see that an adjustment is made.


Arza Clair Casselman: That is quite satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
98.	Pensions and other benefits-William Tatton, $564.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This is
an old friend?

Supply-Justice


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. It was authorized by order in council of June 2, 1922. He is an ex-guard at Kingston. The amount has been voted every year, but I do not know what the original basis of compensation was.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Does this include pensions to retired judges?


Ernest Lapointe: That is all statutory.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder whether
there is anything we can do about the matter. It seems to me that this is a very large item. Some fifty-eight judges are receiving pensions of $302,000 or an average of over $434 each a month. What is the procedure in connection with reducing such an item?


Ernest Lapointe: We cannot. In fact, the views of most of those who speak about this matter would have the effect of increasing the pensions. There is a strong feeling in many quarters that when a judge has reached a certain age he ought to be pensioned and replaced by a younger man.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What is the age?


Ernest Lapointe: Seventy-five.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is compulsory?


Ernest Lapointe: That is what is being done in the Supreme Court of Canada and the exchequer court, because we have the right to do that; but in the provincial courts, under the British North America Act, the judges are appointed for life. We cannot enact a statute concerning that as we did for the supreme court. If they retire because of old age or incapacity, they are entitled to two-thirds of their salary. This parliament has considered a couple of times the possibility of retiring all the judges when they reach the age of seventy-five; but we have not been able to find a legal way of doing it, except to refuse to pay their salary, and that has been considered rather an arbitrary thing to do.


Gordon Graydon: Has the government given consideration to the matter of judges' pensions as far as future appointments are concerned? I realize that many judges might have taken the positions they have on the understanding that they were going to receive not only the salary but also a certain security for life. But what about future appointments? After all, in these days-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has the hon. gentleman considered the great danger as far as his own personal position is concerned?


Gordon Graydon: As far as my personal position is concerned, I have always taken an unselfish attitude. I was really thinking of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). But in these days, when so much stress _ ir being laid on equality of sacrifice and equalit* all along the line, while I would not, perhapsr be in favour of disturbing present arrangements, it does seem that the government might-give consideration to making it a condition! of appointments made in the future that they will retire at a certain age and will have the same kind of retiring allowance as members of parliament and other lesser figures in the dominion sphere.


Ernest Lapointe: Under the British North America Act, we have not the right to do that.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Has consideration been given to the question of requiring judges to pay into a superannuation fund from which they would be able to draw benefits on reaching retirement age? Something should be done in connection with these very large pensions.
I have had a great deal of correspondence with regard to old age pensions in my constituency, people having great difficulty in getting the $20 a month provided for in our province. Those pensions are really a loan on the security of the pensioners' property; their relatives have to repay the amount of the pension after the pensioner dies. Has the minister given consideration to requiring judges to make such contributions?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes; I have discussed that with many judges, who favour this proposal provided their widows would be entitled to half their pension, as widows of civil servants are under the Civil Service Superannuation Act. There are objections, but the suggestion deserves to be carefully studied; there is much merit in it. But it will have to be coupled with an indemnity to the widows when the judges die.


Gordon Graydon: Are the judges not paid under the Judges Act?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: Is there any reason why the Judges Act should not be amended? Surely we do not have to be bound by the answer that the British North America Act does not permit us to do this. When we wanted to give the working men a little benefit by an unemployment insurance act, which required an amendment of the British North America Act, it went through so quickly we could hardly get into the house before it passed. I urge the Minister of Justice to consider seriously whether, if the law does not permit
Supply-Justice

him to do the things we suggest, the law could not be changed relative to future appointments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
3X8. General administration, $216,503.
Howard Charles Green: What is the present strength of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? I believe the minister stated last year that it was to be increased considerably. On March 31, 1940, I believe there were 2,552 exclusive of special constable guards. Also, how are these young men selected and trained?


Ernest Lapointe: The main estimates provide for a total strength of 2,515. But under the War Appropriation Act we have, I think, 2,000 special constables, and out of the increase of 500 new members we have enlisted so far, 250, so the total force would be about 4,700.


Howard Charles Green: What about recruiting and training? What length of time does the training take?


Ernest Lapointe: They have to meet the ordinary rules and regulations. We have applications, not so many as before the war because a very large number of young men who are physically fit and who would meet the educational requirements have enlisted. The officers of the force are still very strict as to the requirements, but we hope to find the remainder of the five hundred, in the near future.


Howard Charles Green: Are the standards of the old force being maintained in the training?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes;
rather enhanced.


Thomas Langton Church: The commissioner is
getting a very fine type of new recruit in the extension programme of this fine police department, and I was wondering whether the work of the home guard and the provost marshals could not be coordinated with the work of the mounted police, particularly in cities like Ottawa and other centres. I think the mounted police might do the work more efficiently and thus avoid a great deal of duplication, because many members of the mounted police are returned men. The federal power should pay for home guards of all public property and provost marshals.


Ernest Lapointe: We are
using veterans of the last war for guard duty; in fact we have 1,600 of them at work at the present time.


James Arthur Ross: In Manitoba, where
the mounted police have taken over all police

work, what authority has the attorney general's department over them? How do they fit into the picture as compared with Ottawa?


Ernest Lapointe: In provincial matters, in the field occupied by the attorney general in the provinces where they have their own provincial police, it is the attorney general of the province who gives instructions to the mounted police. That is in regard to everything provincial in its scope. Of course, in federal matters they are directly under our control.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: A few years ago many
provincial governments dismissed their provincial police and left the police work to the mounted police. I think that has worked out satisfactorily in most provinces. I believe the arrangement then entered into was that the provincial and federal governments each would pay 50 per cent of the cost, or was a lump sum fixed?


Ernest Lapointe: Under
the contract with New Brunswick the province pays $1,000 for every man we supply for police work.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: At that time we thought
we would save money, and we did. Since then, there has been, I understand, an increase in the number of policemen in that province. What has the increase been, and what has it meant in the matter of payment by the province?


Ernest Lapointe: As
between what years?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I understand there has
been an increase all over Canada since the beginning of the war. Does that apply to New Brunswick as well as the other provinces?


Ernest Lapointe: The
increase in New Brunswick has been from 115 to 167.


James Arthur Ross: Does that arrangement apply in each province? Is Manitoba on the same basis as New Brunswick?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, the
same basis.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I understand that a
number of men have been engaged for guard duty on the railways at particular points across the country. How are the activities of these special guards coordinated with the activities of the mounted police?


Ernest Lapointe: They are veterans, under our supervision and paid by us.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: What is the salary paid a constable, say a married man living outside the city?

Supply-Justice


Ernest Lapointe: For a
constable first class, the rate of pay is from $2 to $2.25 per diem, with a living allowance of $1.60; for a constable second class, the pay is $1.75 per diem with the same living allowance, and for a constable third class, $1.50 per diem, with the same living allowance.


Charles Edward Johnston: How are
the different classes made up?


Ernest Lapointe: According to length of service, the number of years in the force.


Charles Edward Johnston: Out of
their living allowance do they have to pay the rent for their houses?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Charles Edward Johnston: At $2 a
day their pay would amount to only about $60 a month.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Charles Edward Johnston: I know
of some constables who have to pay $30 or $35 a month in rent alone. If they get only $60 or $70 a month in wages they certainly would not have enough left to permit them to live decently and respectably. That is a very low wage.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not object at all to the remarks of my hon. friend, more particularly because I have recommended an increase, and that recommendation is now before the treasury board. As a matter of fact, during the last war the police were paid a bonus because of the higher cost of living. We must admit that these constables, who are first-class men in every way and who are risking their lives almost daily, are not being paid rates comparable with those paid in other services and other directions. I may say that if the committee shares my views about this, it will help me with the treasury board.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have
had an opportunity of visiting three of these mounted policemen, and they are living under conditions right next to relief. I have been in some of their houses; I have discussed with them the wages they are paid and the work they have to do. They work long hours; sometimes they are on the road all night long. I understand, further, that they do not even receive their car expenses; I believe they are given so much a day for the use of the car, and that if they have to take long trips they are out of pocket. I do not think that is a fair deal for these people, particularly in war time when they are taking on some very hard work. I am
glad to hear that the minister is contemplating giving them a little assistance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of what the minister has just said, I might add a word of support. I know that in one important community in Ontario the mounted police receive less than the city police; and though I am not too definite about this, my impression is that they receive less, certainly in the lower brackets, than the Ontario provincial police. If that is the situation, I think we will all agree that the importance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is such that the salary of an officer of that force certainly should not be less than that of a city policeman, and should at least equal that of a provincial policeman.
I know of at least three officers, one of whom was a sergeant in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but who left the service because of inadequacy of pay. He has been taken over by a large industrial plant to work in connection with its protective service. I am sure the commissioner would be one of the first to admit that on that account the force has lost a valuable officer. I do not think the inadequacy of pay of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police can go without a protest.


Mr. SLAGHT:: It is my view that the
items now under discussion are of great importance. In answer to a query we have just heard the minister place on record the pay the constables in the force receive and, if I am not mistaken, the figures he gave were the maximum under the present schedule that a constable may receive for the first seven years of his service, if he is not promoted.
The great bulk of the men in this force are under the schedule of pay the minister has just recited, namely $2 to $2.25 per day, with an allowance of $1.60 for living. Then there is another class at $1.75, with a similar living allowance. I suggest to the committee that we should add our voices in the strongest possible manner to the application the minister has told us he is making to the treasury board for a substantial increase in these amounts. Whether or not our voices reach as far as the treasury board, I am not able to inform the committee. But if we look at the present remuneration in other fields, we must conclude that the pay offered in this instance is a disgrace. I find fault with nobody, because these figures have prevailed for the last twenty years, under various governments.
The figures just mentioned are a disgrace to offer to the men who serve in that force. In order to enter it, they are required to be university matriculants. They are required
Supply-Justice

to take special courses in various types of education, physical training, drill, history of the force, first aid and so on. They must be expert shots, and take revolver practice. They must be students of criminal law and must understand ballistics. They must understand the chemistry of blood stains. We can scarcely appreciate the type of service these men are required to render.
In the last year and a half I have learned something of their work in connection with the very important anti-sabotage service they are rendering to our country. We learned from the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services that in the first fourteen months of the war, 3,500 vessels left Canadian ports, and that most of them left from ports on the Atlantic coast. Those vessels are in operation to carry food supplies and munitions, and to keep the mother country filled with supplies in her time of need. Each of those vessels had to be carefully checked and inspected by the marine branch of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in order to avert the possibility of those terrific disasters at sea, such as occurred in the last war. Some fifteen months ago I placed on record what happened to shipping out of United States ports. I explained how bombs were planted, chemicals placed in holds, and I said that 103 vessels which in two years had left United States Atlantic ports were either blown up or had experienced incendiary fires started at sea. Those disasters lessened by millions of tons the cargoes intended for Great Britain at the time of the last war.
Our mounted police have done a wonderful job, not only on both ocean coast-lines, but throughout the country. I am not going to give a detailed account of their services, because it would be inappropriate to-night to do so. But let me give some figures: The ice man, the man who wears the white coat and fills the ice-bucket in my room in the House of Commons, receives $4 a day. In the mines the mucker or the surface man receives, according to official figures, a minimum of $4.24 a day. That is the amount paid to those surface and underground men who are performing the cheapest form of labour in connection with mining. Drill runners receive $5.25 a day. It is true that out of that amount they pay approximately $1 to $1.25 a day for board. The average pay our Canadian mines dispense to workers is $5.25 a day. At the moment I am not decrying the amount we pay the ice-man who distributes the ice to the rooms in the House of Commons. Messengers in the house, faithful fellows, receive $4 to $4.50 a day. The protective guards at our main door receive $4, $4.50 and $5 a day.
(Mr. Slaght.]
Yet we pay those men who work early and late, who leave their homes in the mornings, and whose wives and families do not know whether or not they will return-we pay those men who are engaged in one of the most dangerous and important services $1.75 and $2.25 a day, with a living allowance of $1.60. That, mind you, is the most they can earn in the first seven years of their employment.
I cannot too strongly urge upon this committee the necessity of correcting that grave injustice. Were I to take time to make comparisons, I could give figures for munition factories and shell factories. The shell factory in my own constituency of Parry Sound produces $16,000,000 worth of cordite and TNT for the British government in one year. The schedule of pay the workers in that plant receive makes the pay of this great protective and anti-sabotage service look miserable and small.
Please let us not permit an opportunity of this kind to pass without from every quarter of the house adding our voices, so that the minister's hands may be strengthened. I have had some conversation with him, and I know he feels that the pay is entirely inadequate. The commissioner, who is here to-night, is one to whom the committee owes a great debt of gratitude, because of the perilous and tremendous load he has carried since war broke out. He has taken the responsibility for matters connected with internment. Why, if four or five of these men slipped up on their jobs and a crackpot were given the opportunity, great damage might be done by destructive bombs. I shall not mention places, because we do not do that in war time. Any slip-up on the part of these men might prove costly. At the time of the last war the United States suffered a bath of blood, and to some extent they are having the same experience to-day. Any error in judgment, or any tendency to sleep while on duty might have the effect overnight of paralyzing the war industry of Ontario. Yet we are paying $1.75 and $2.25 to the men charged with that responsibility!
I do not wish to show heat. But I would hope that every hon. member will not permit this occasion to pass without making it known to the minister that we in the House of Commons, more than any other people in Canada, desire to remedy a situation which, unless remedied, will be an everlasting disgrace to our country.


Mr. ADAMSON:: Mr. Chairman, I should like very much to support the observations of the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Parry Sound. One cannot possibly appreciate the preventive service afforded this

Supply-Justice
country by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is impossible to put a dollars-and-cents value on their services. I speak now more particularly of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer that you do not see- or at least you do not see him until it is too late. These men have to be experts in every line of sabotage. I do not need to tell the committee because it must know that attempts at sabotage have been made in Canada during the past year, and I think we can congratulate ourselves in this country upon our remarkable record of lack of sabotage in Canada, which has been due almost entirely to the wonderful work done by the mounted police.
Their salary as third-class constables starts at $1.50 a day. They get a 5-cent raise a day every year until they reach $2.25, if my information is right, after nine years, not seven. The plain-clothes men get an allowance of 25 cents a day for their plain-clothes and a living allowance of $1 a day as well. The maximum that a constable can get after nine years' service in the force is just about $100 a month or a little over $3 a day, and from that all taxes and the superannuation contribution are deducted.
One other item I should like to mention is the question of allowing these men enough expenses when they are out on a case. We are not looking for saboteurs who live in the gutter or frequent low dives. The intelligent saboteurs stay at the best hotels in the country, belong to good clubs, travel by Pullman and engage drawing rooms. They are the completely unsuspected saboteurs. They are the men whom the mounted police must look for and are looking for, but at the present rate of allowances they are working under tremendous difficulties in keeping on the trail of such men. I suggest to the minister that the allowances be made extremely generous, particularly in war time. I would also suggest that the minimum pay be raised to at least $3 a day for a man just starting in with the force and go on up to two and a half times what the rate is at the present time. We cannot appreciate the job that is being done by this special force, and I would urge the minister as strongly as I can to consider putting this question of pay and allowances up to the treasury board in the strongest possible manner.


Mr. LOCKHART:: May I inquire of the minister if the 500 additional members of the force have been engaged or only a part of that number?


Ernest Lapointe: There have been 250 selected and engaged, and if the full quota has not been engaged it is because of lack of accommodation.
14*3-71


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I come from a community which needs careful scrutiny as much probably as any other part of Canada; on numerous occasions I have talked with the very best type of men that could be secured for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and I have on occasion written the department with regard to peculiarly well qualified young men who were desirous of joining the force. But because of the present rates of pay I have found an aversion to joining the force on the part of many young men who by background and environment would make in my opinion-probably it is not worth very much-the very best type of officer, the kind which has been appealed for here to-night.
I could easily count ten young men who have said, "My desire was to join this service if physically fit and able to meet the other requirements". The hon. member for Parry Sound referred to university training. I think he was wrong there.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Not university training but matriculation into a university. That is the test.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: These young men who have spoken to me have gone away sadly disappointed, and many of them have told me that they would love to join the force if only the remuneration were sufficient to give them a living wage as the years went by. Therefore I want to add my humble voice to those of other hon. members and appeal to the minister to urge upon the treasury board a higher rate of pay for the force because, I repeat, I know at least ten of the finest young men in my county who would make splendid officers, who have not put in an application simply because the remuneration was so low over such a long period of years that they could not possibly support themselves on it.


Mr. GRAHAM:: As an agent of the crown in Saskatchewan I have had a long connection with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I do not think I can add anything to what has been said with regard to the injustice of the present rates of pay. Because it is poor business for that to continue, if for no other reason, we should increase the pay and allowances as quickly, as possible.
The mounted police were originally formed as a military body and the establishment is a military establishment, but their duties in the last few years have changed considerably. Theirs is no longer the task which was presented to the mounted police in the early days of patrolling the border to guard against infractions of dominion law. They are carrying on a most difficult task, apart from

Supply-Justice

any war work they are doing, in crime detection in all its phases. That calls for a very high type of officer, as the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) has pointed out, and it seems to me that it will be impossible for this government to continue to attract to and keep on the force the type of men we must have if its high reputation and good work are to be maintained unless the present rates of pay are increased.
We should perforce demand in our own interest, by reason of the change that has taken place in the duties of this police force, a proper scale of remuneration to the members of the force. I know that during the depression many types of fine young men found an outlet for their energy by joining the force but I am certain that the rates of pay to which we have listened to-night, cannot in ordinary normal times keep in the force the type of men we want to see in it. We seem to be in agreement on that to-night, and I would inquire from the minister how we can properly register our opinion as a committee. If any member of the committee disagrees with the sentiments that have been so generally expressed to-night about the force and the rates of pay, I would ask him to give expression to his views, failing which, I think the minister may take it for granted that every member of this committee would like to see the services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police properly recognized in the matter of pay and allowances.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I have been a
member of this house for a good many years, but never before has it been my experience that a vote brought before the committee by a minister has met with such general approval. In years gone by, the Minister of Justice has encountered opposition in presenting his vote for the mounted police. I am glad that the attitude of the committee has altered, because no one could have more admiration for the mounted police than I have. For over forty years I have seen them at work. When first I came in contact with them, they were the "North West Mounted Police," and not the "Royal Canadian Mounted Police" as they are now; and they policed the western frontier. It was my privilege to go on that great gold rush some forty-two years ago, in which people on their way to the Yukon, into the Klondike gold-fields, had to go through Alaska, where law and order were unknown, where murder and robbery were common, where people's lives were not safe and they had no protection at all. But as that crowd went 
up the trail and came to the Canadian boundary and the union jack and the mounted police, they faced an altogether different situation. When men came up there with revolvers or pistols strapped on their belts, their first experience of the mounted police was to be tapped on the shoulder and told, "You had just better give me that gun; you might hurt yourself with it. They are not needed on this side of the boundary." They were not allowed to carry guns, except sporting guns and rifles for hunting game; no other guns were allowed to be carried in the Yukon.
It seems shameful that a force as valuable to Canada as is the mounted police should be asked to carry on as it does, with the utmost efficiency, for so paltry a remuneration. According to figures given to the committee this evening, they are not paid as much as the commonest of common labourers. I do not think a mounted policeman should be asked to be a member of this force in any part of Canada for less than $5 a day. Where can one get labour for less? One cannot get a carpenter, for instance, for less than a dollar an hour. I am sure that the services of this force are of sufficient value to the people of Canada to warrant our paying them a stipend more in keeping with the value of the services they render.


George Hugh Castleden: To make this unanimous, may I add a voice from this group. Quite by accident, last summer in this very city there came to my attention the case of a constable in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachment here whose pay was so low. and the cost of living in this city so high, that his wife was compelled to take in washing to maintain a decent standard of living in that home.
In supporting this direction to the minister, I would say that many men in the force find it impossible to live ordinary lives, get married and settle down, on account of the regulations and because the pay is so low, that is, in the first seven years. I would urge the department, in making any increases, to pay particular attention to the position of married men in the force who are trying to maintain homes, and see that in no case the standard of living is below that which should be maintained by ordinary decent citizens.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: There is no one in this country who has a higher regard for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police than I have. Canada is rightly proud of this great force, and we have with pride sent them to other countries, where they have always been exceedingly well received.

Supply-Justice
Anywhere in the English-speaking world where their picture appears in the moving picture theatres, it is invariably received with great applause. They are indeed a great credit to our country, and I trust that anything I say to-night will not be construed as detracting from their great merits.
The pay which they receive has been compared this evening with the pay which the ice-man receives for filling the small receptacles in the rooms in the House of Commons. But let me point out, Mr. Chairman, that the ice-men in the House of Commons probably work for only three, or a maximum of four months in the year.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: That is not so. Most of them have other positions and work all the year round.


William Ross Macdonald: Well, I do not know much about the ice-man.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Yes, but the hon. member does not drink any water.


William Ross Macdonald: No doubt other hon. members can speak with greater authority on the ice-man and his duties than I can.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I
interrupt the hon. member to say that I was here for fourteen years and I did not have an ice-man at all.


William Ross Macdonald: 
Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Not enough.


William Ross Macdonald: "Not enough," my hon. friend says. My point is that a man, a private in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police starts at $1.75 a day, and a private soldier, who is prepared to go abroad and risk his life, or to risk it in this country, starts at $1.30 a day. If we are making comparisons, I think we should compare the lot of the man in this great force with that of the private soldier who is doing a great service and is prepared to do a greater service for his country. If we are to revise the rates of pay of the men in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, then, I say, let us consider whether or not we should revise the rates of pay of the private soldiers in the army.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In normal
peace times is it the fact that there is always a substantial waiting list?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Mr. ROEBUCK:: At the risk of prolonging the debate unnecessarily, let me say a word. It seems to me unfortunate that we have made comparisons between the men of the mounted police and the man who delivers the ice, and the soldier, and others of that kind. The hon. member for Parry Sound had no intention of making that comparison or of putting them on the same basis at all. His only purpose was to make his plea more striking with regard to the mounted police. I regret bringing in the soldier also. The soldier is not making a life work out of winning the war. Some of them will -be giving their lives, it is true, and no one with any knowledge of humanity would say that a soldier is serving his country for the miserable pay that we give him. He gets the pay, a trifling pay, but he does not serve for the pay. He is serving for something far higher than pay.
Supply-Justice

My impulse to add my voice to what has been said springs from the fact that, I suppose, I am one of the very few members of this house, if not the only one, who has actually managed a police force, because as attorney general of Ontario,. I had the provincial police under my direct supervision for a period of three years. Of course there was a commissioner of police, but the management of the force was on my personal desk for a period of three years. When I took over the direction of that force, I tried to impress upon all members of it that they were occupying a position superior to that of a common labourer, and that the day of the "flat foot", so far as policemen are concerned, had gone by. They were not men who simply walked a beat and put in so many hours a day. They were highly trained specialists in a most important service. In order to carry out that ideal of a police force of a superior type, I induced the legislature of the province to make a considerable grant to a police school, which was presided over by Mr. McRuer and which went into the many subjects enumerated by the hon. member for Parry Sound, in an effort to increase the status of the police force, to abolish their own low estimate of themselves, to raise their own dignity and to impress them with the importance of the service which they render.
What strikes me is this, that one cannot have men above the grade of the ordinary labourer and yet pay them on the basis of the ordinary labourer. I am speaking from memory-and that memory is now some four years old-but what I carry in my mind with regard to the amounts that were paid to the police of the province of Ontario is that they ranged from $1,600 to $1,750 a year. That was the basic rate of pay. I may be wrong in these figures, because, as I say, it is memory and that memory is now some four years old. But I am quite sure that the province of Ontario paid to the provincial police more than $5 a day, working days; and I never heard it suggested, and it never occurred to anyone's mind, that we were paying too much. Ontario was paying a smaller wage than the city of Toronto was paying to men doing perhaps less responsible work than these members of a general police force who are on their own almost all day long and are doing the work of trained experts, judge, jury and everything else, half the time when they meet with difficulties.
I was amazed when I learned to-night the rates of pay that are being handed out to the members of the dominion police force, and if my word and my view will add anything to what has already been said, I shall

be pleased. I fancy that this committee has been so unanimous in this matter that something will be done about it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The Federal Bureau of Investigation, under Mr. Hoover, start with a minimum of $3,000 a year. I believe Mr. Hoover was up to see Commissioner Wood and he remarked what a wonderful force the commissioner had, but he was amazed at the compensation and felt that it was only the marvellous loyalty of the men that kept them in the force.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I make one suggestion for the benefit of the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald). I think I can speak with authority for the mounted police when I say that they would be perfectly satisfied) to accept the pay which the federal government gives to members of the legal fraternity.


Frederick Davis Shaw: The minister has referred to 2,000 special constables. What are the terms of their engagement and rates of pay?


Ernest Lapointe: They are engaged for a year and the pay is $1.50 a day. They are living in barracks.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Are these special constables single men?


Ernest Lapointe: Is my hon. friend speaking of the veterans who are doing guard work? They are paid $3.20 a day and most of them are married; of course there is the usual medical attention as well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
SI9. Land services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses, $5,034,041.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the position in relation to the provinces? How many provinces employ the mounted police?


Ernest Lapointe: Six.
British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario have their own.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What do the other provinces pay the federal government?


Ernest Lapointe: It is on the basis of $1,000 a man.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I had an idea it was a limit of $100,000.


Ernest Lapointe: It is
$115,000. I have not the figures for all the provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Agriculture
Pensions and other benefits.
322. Pensions to mounted police, Prince Albert volunteers and police scouts on account of the rebellion of 1885, $83.95.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this
the last of them? This seems to be an old item.


Ernest Lapointe: He is the only one left of that brigade.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and other benefits.
325. Pension to Basil Burke Currie, $684.20.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Under the statute is the pension system contributory?


Ernest Lapointe: It is in the case of the constables, not the officers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the department given consideration to that? It would mean a substantial sum if it were made contributory. Has it ever been suggested that it should be? It might be better in the interests of the men themselves; it is a form of saving.


Ernest Lapointe: There is a fund for the widows and orphans to which the men contribute.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What is the retiring age
for the mounted police, and what is the allowance?


Ernest Lapointe: For
officers the retiring age is from sixty to sixty-three, and for other ranks, from fifty-six years. The allowance is based on length of service.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I understand the
pension and other benefits in one case is to the widow of a mounted policeman who, I presume, lost his life in the service. But on a preceding page of the estimates I see that a man from the legal profession gets a pension of $555 a month, whereas the pension to the widow is $38.02 a month. Where is the justice in that?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Some of them get $1,000 a month.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The superannuation of a retired judge is $555.56 a month, whereas to the lady it is $456.25 a year, which, as I divide it, amounts to $38 a month. I submit that, whether she be a judge's wife or a mounted policeman's wife, a woman is entitled to a decent standard of living. If a judge is any better than a mounted policeman, I want to be shown.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is wrong about judges' wives, because they receive nothing.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Is not the explanation that there are some seventy members of the legal profession in this house, and no mounted
policemen?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Could the minister give
some more definite information as to allowances paid to mounted policemen on retirement? He said it is according to years of service, but that is not quite definite.


Ernest Lapointe: It is
based on length of service and rate of pay, and it would amount to about two-thirds of his salary.


Gordon Graydon: Many comparisons have
been made to-night about many people. I was amazed to hear the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) who is one of the best farmers in Saskatchewan-I know because I was on his farm this year-raise his voice with regard to lawyers, also the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), both of whom pride themselves on the great reputation of agriculture; yet it is left to me, a solicitor, to raise my voice in the matter. If comparisons are to be made, why not bring in the lowest paid man in the whole country, namely, the farmer?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is it not a fact that in
addition to the inadequacy of pay, an officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is
denied during the first years of his service the legitimate opportunity of marital association?


Agar Rodney Adamson: The first seven years?


Ernest Lapointe: I can
not say anything as to that.
Mr. GRAYDON. I suggest that the Minister of National Defence might answer that question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Administration service.
1. Departmental administration, $121,925.
James Arthur Ross: Would the minister
make a statement giving the people of this country some lead as to what they are expected to produce this year in meat, wheat and other foodstuffs essential to the prosecution of the war? It is only fair that he should give the producers some broad lead for the coming year. Would he also give some idea as to the jurisdiction and authority of the federal Department of Agriculture as compared with the officers of provincial departments in the matter of encouraging production?
Supply-Agriculture


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I
supplement that by asking the minister to give a statement of the government's agricultural policy, generally speaking?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: That is a fairly heavy order to receive at ten-thirty at night. The question asked by the hon. member for Souris as to how much we should produce and what we should be producing in connection with the war is difficult to answer. I think I -have said in this house before, and I repeat now, that the agriculturist in surplus-producing countries always experiences difficulties before a war comes on, and even greater difficulties immediately after the beginning of a war. That has always been the history of agriculture in countries outside war zones producing commodities for consumption in other countries, particularly in those areas where the war is being carried on. That was true in the last war and up to date it has been true in this war.
I have no greater knowledge than anyone else in this chamber as to when the turning point will be reached in this war. In the last war it came in 1916, or a little more than two years after the war began. In this war, judging from what has happened so far, the period during which it will be difficult for agriculture in this country will probably be somewhat longer. In other words, we have passed through one fairly difficult year; we are well into the second difficult year, and there is not much possibility that we shall get out of our difficulties in connection with agriculture during the year through which we are now passing.
Having said that, I should like to call attention to the fact that we have something over five hundred million bushels of wheat in store in- Canada, which means that, without taking into consideration any of the wheat we shall produce this year, we have at least two years' supply for ourselves, Great Britain and the other countries to which we have any chance of exporting wheat, unless something happens in the course of the war that has not happened as yet. Therefore there is no reason for saying to-night that we should increase the production of wheat in Canada. Possibly there is some reason for saying that we should reduce production rather than increase it during the coming summer, but I do not think anyone could base even advice -to reduce wheat production on anything in the way of statistics or any experience we have had in this country in the past or that other countries have had in relation to the production of wheat. I would not be too insistent on saying that men should even cut down their acreage this year, although I think it would 
be advisable for them to do so in view of storage conditions across this country. But I would not be at all sure that two or three years from now, someone could not rise in his place in this house and say that I had made a mistake in giving that advice, even with the world at war as it is to-day.
The other farm product that probably has been discussed at greatest length in Canada recently is pork products, particularly bacon. I think I have said before in this house, and, if not, I want to say it now, that in the fall of 1939, immediately after the war began, the British government took the trouble to send a man to Canada to discuss with us the matter of bacon. He was on his way to take up a position in Washington. The British government asked him to come by way of Canada and to take up his appointment in Washington after he had -performed his mission here. T-hat mission was to tell us in Canada not to increase our production of hogs because of any request we thought had been -made or was likely to be made by Britain in relation to the war. He did not say we were not to increase our production of hogs; he said that was a matter for our -own judgment, but he said they did not wish to be told later on that they had asked us to increase our hog production. That information was given the country at the time. I made the statement myself on many occasions, from one end of Canada to the other. That information was given to representatives of all the provincial governments, who were assembled in this city for the purpose -of receiving it. They were told there was no intimation from Great Britain that they would require more in the way of pork products, and it was intimated to them that the British had clearly indicated to us that they did not want us to say later they had advised us to produce more pork products, but that we would have to form our own judgment in that regard.
During the early weeks of the war we found that our statistics with regard to the production of hogs in Canada were not authentic. We thought they were, but a very few weeks after the war began we found that there were more hogs in Canada than our statistics had led us to believe. That year we entered into an agreement with Great Britain for the delivery of 291,000,000 pounds of bacon, and all through the year we found that we were getting deliveries very much greater than the quantities required under that contract. The result was that during that year we actually delivered about 330,000,000 pounds as against the 291,000,000 pounds for which we had contracted.

Supply-Agriculture
By the time we entered into the second year of the war it was apparent, from the deliveries of the preceding year and from the statistics then available, which had been more carefully compiled than previously, that we would have at least 425,000,000 pounds of bacon and ham for delivery to Britain during this year without in any way interfering with the consumption in Canada. Therefore we entered into an agreement based upon those figures. Hon. members will recall that in 1932, when we entered into a trade agreement with Britain, we thought we were asking for an outside figure when we asked for a quota of 280,000,000 pounds.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That was when Denmark was still supplying the British market.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; Denmark was suppling the market at that time. This year we thought we had the outside quantity at
425.000.	000 pounds; but speaking in round figures, since the beginning of that contract there has been delivered an average of
3.000.	000 pounds a week more than the contract calls for, and I think, as well, we have been eating more pork in Canada than at any previous time. In other words, we are getting about 3,000,000 pounds more a week than the contract calls for, up to the present time. Britain has been taking approximately a million pounds a week more than she contracted to take, and we have been putting about 2,000,000 pounds a week into cold storage.
I give these figures in order to indicate to the committee what I think will be quite apparent, in answer to the question of the hon. member for Souris; that is, that no one in the federal Department of Agriculture is asking the farmers of Canada to produce more hogs at present in order to supply the demands of our own market plus those of the British market.
There is an uncertain factor in connection with the whole position at the present time in relation to hogs, and it is this:	The United
States market last year, throughout the whole year, averaged about three cents a pound under our market for hogs. That was due largely to the fact that we had entered into an agreement with Great Britain last year, and that Great Britain took delivery throughout the whole year of hogs at that higher price.
This year the United States price has drawn up closer to the Canadian price, and occasionally runs a little above our price, when one takes into consideration the difference in the value of exchange, and the tariffs as between the two countries. Occasionally hogs have crossed the boundary line into the United States, since the entering into of the new
agreement, because of the price being a little higher from day to day in the United States than it has been in this country. But, generally speaking, since the contract was entered into, the price in Canada is still better than the price to be obtained in the United States. How long that will last, we do not know. If there is the bidding for Canadian hogs in the United States, then there is the possibility that the entire amount that we now have will be required.
Some inquiries have been made as to whether we might be able to provide more bacon and ham to Great Britain. But nothing definite as to whether they will require more, or whether they will desire to have more, has been arrived at. Inquiries have been made as to whether we would be able to provide them, if they required it, and we have given the information to the British government that I have given the committee to-night, in order that they may be fully informed as to our position. Therefore I believe I may say in answer to the question that, in so far as bacon production and hog products generally are concerned, the farmers of Canada are producing everything we require up to date to supply the Canadian market and the British market. I am not discussing, in connection with that question, the point whether or not the farmer is getting all he needs to get for the hogs he is producing. But the farmer is doing his part at least in producing all the hog products wTe have been able to>
dispose of in supplying the British demands for bacon on the other side, supplying our own market as well, and the limited amount which has been going to the United States.
In so far as cattle are concerned, we are getting the best price for cattle we have had for many years. We are selling all our surplus cattle in the United States. Up to date there has been no necessity to ship any cattle to Great Britain, as part of our war effort. The United States is taking all our cattle, and would take more than they are getting from this country. In other words, there is no problem connected with getting rid of the surplus supply of cattle.
We have this position existing at the present time: While some people have been suggesting that our prices ought to be on a parity with those of 1926, cattle constitute the one farm product which at the present time is above the parity for 1926. I believe on an average throughout the year the price has been above the parity for 1926. Therefore there is not much complaint or much opportunity for discussion with regard to the price
Supply-Agriculture

of cattle, for many of those who are relying upon cattle for their returns in connection with their farming operations.
The position in connection with dairy products is that we can dispose of all the cheese we care to produce or that we are likely to produce in Canada at the price at which we are now selling it to Great Britain, namely, at 14-4 cents, beginning on the first of April. We shall be selling it at 14 cents up to April 1, but after that date at the rate of 14-4 cents Great Britain will take practically all the cheese we can produce in Canada for export. I think she will take all we can produce.
The reason for the price of 14-4 cents is this: Great Britain has an agreement under which she takes all the cheese New Zealand can export, and she has an agreement under which she gets that cheese at a certain price. We have always had a premium of between two and three cents a pound for Canadian cheese over that received for New Zealand cheese. When the normal premium is figured on top of the New Zealand price, it works out at 14-4 cents.
Since we made arrangements with Great Britain in connection with this agreement, some people have asked why we accepted a price of 14-4 cents. Other people have put it in another way and have said that 14-4 cents is all right for Great Britain to pay, if that is all she can pay, but that the farmer cannot get along on that price. All I wish to say in that connection is this-and without quoting a price at all: At the end of the last war we started a chain of difficulties for cheese producers in this country by being critical of a price, if not refusing to accept a price, which in any year between then and now would have been considered as a fairly high price. We refused to accept for cheese a price offered to us by the British government, and we withheld deliveries rather than deliver at that price.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What was the price?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was somewhere around 20 cents. I have forgotten the exact figure, but it was somewhere between 18 and 22 cents. But we were not prepared to accept that price. New Zealand on the other hand was prepared to accept the price offered. If one follows the statistics with regard to cheese production and delivery from Canada to Great Britain, and cheese production and delivery from New Zealand to Great Britain from that time to the present, or to a time about five years ago, he will find that New Zealand was 
gradually, from year to year, creeping up in her deliveries to Great Britain, and that from year to year we were gradually going down.
In the last three or four years we have been gradually creeping up again. In 1935 we delivered 54,000,000 pounds.


Mr. SENN:: The lowest ever.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Last year we
delivered 91,000,000 pounds, or the highest amount we had delivered for quite a number of years. This year we have contracted to 'deliver 112,000,000 pounds, and that will be very much higher than we have delivered for a number of years.
In dealing with cheese we have attempted to encourage production. That encouragement was given for a period of two years before the war, and for the year since the war began, by paying a premium on 93-score cheese of one cent, and a premium of 2 cents on 94-score cheese. Speaking again from memory, I believe figures I gave to the house at the time the premium was allowed, showed that about 42 per cent or 43 per cent of cheese in Canada was 93 or 94-score. To-day it is 62 per cent. In other words, the paying of the premium, along with the effort of the farmer himself to improve his quality, has resulted in our obtaining a very much higher production of 93 and 94-score cheese than we had previously.
But since the agreement came into effect we have found this further result: Instead of the farmer who produced 93-score cheese getting 14 cents, he was getting 15 cents; and the man producing 94-score was getting 16 cents. This year we have added three-fifths of a cent to the British price, making a flat price of 15 cents on all cheese delivered to Great Britain. The premium of one cent still remains, which means that those producing 93-score get 16 cents and those producing 94-score get 17 cents. That is true right across Canada.
Seventy per cent of our cheese is produced in Ontario. The greater part of the remaining percentage is produced in Quebec. Some is produced in the maritime provinces, and a comparatively small amount in Alberta and Manitoba. Eighty per cent of all the cheese going to Great Britain comes out of Ontario, and it takes the greater part of that 62 per cent which scores 93, or better, to supply the British market.
With that picture before us, I should like to say something with regard to encouragement given to farmers to produce farm products, and particularly dairy products. There are certain areas in Canada which are very well constituted as dairy sections, and

Supply-Agriculture
there are certain parts of even the dairy sections which are better constituted for the production of cheese than for the production of butter. The area that is best provided with those things that are necessary for the production of cheese is the area from Toronto eastward to somewhere in the province of Quebec. It is in that area that the greater part of our cheese is produced. The greater part of the cheese produced in Ontario, in spite of the fact that she produces 70 per cent of all the cheese produced in Canada, is produced in that section.
One thing we have been trying to do in connection with war policy in this war, having had some experience in the last one, has been to avoid doing those things which encourage people to go into production in a big way during the war of farm products which they cannot produce economically in peace time, particularly if the areas which produce in volume are able to provide the quantity that is required while the war lasts. For that reason, when we were asked to put a subsidy on cheese produced all across Canada, I, as Minister of Agriculture, hesitated to suggest to the government of -this country, and I would hesitate to suggest to this committee, that we should put a subsidy on cheese to raise the price to, let us say 19 cents a pound, which was suggested by persons associated with the dairy industry and by others. The result would be to induce people in certain parts of Canada which are not particularly well provided with the facilities to produce cheese at even a lower price than that to go into cheese production for the time being, because, in spite of what has been said about the price of dairy products, I am convinced, as I think every hon. member is who has made a study of the question, that we cannot expect over any long period of years in peace time to be able to get as much as 19 cents a pound for our cheese.


Mark Cecil Senn: If I may ask the minister a
question, does he suggest that the premier of Ontario is making a mistake in bonussing cheese production to the extent of two cents a pound?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; I was just coming
to the point of saying that I think he did the right thing. In Canada we are living in a confederation, and there are some advantages in a confederation as well as some disadvantages. I think the government of Ontario came to the right conclusion when they concluded that the natural cheese-producing area in this country is in Ontario, and that they could put a subsidy on cheese to bring the price up to 19 cents a pound in
that area without inducing people in other sections of the country, which probably should not be in the cheese business, to go into it for the time being, and thereby in the long run injure others. In other words, I think that the granting of a subsidy of two cents a pound on cheese in Ontario was a move in the right direction, and that it will probably get cheese production where it ought to be. I am informed that some of the other provinces are considering doing the same thing, and to the extent that it is done wisely and in the areas where it is proper that cheese should be produced, it is I think an advisable thing to do. But I do not think Canada in the long run would have benefited if this government had stepped in and simply said: We will pay a subsidy on cheese which will get production in those areas that cannot naturally adjust themselves to the production of cheese even at the price they may have to take.


Mr. PERLEY:: Does that same principle
apply to the Saskatchewan government as regards wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: We shall come to wheat and the prices of wheat in due course. I would just point out now that wheat is not my problem but that of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). It is, of course, my problem as a citizen of Saskatchewan and as a member from Saskatchewan, but wheat itself comes under the administration of the Department of Trade and Commerce. There is another side to the wheat question. I should just like to say in passing that I do not think the farmer of western Canada has ever been subsidized on his wheat during this war, and I do not think he is being subsidized on his wheat now. I believe that what is being paid to the farmer to-day on wheat is what it has always been called and what it is called in the act-an advance on his wheat.


Mr. LECLERC:: I hope the minister tonight will not get on to the subject of the western farmer and his wheat but will stick to cheese and butter.


James Garfield Gardiner: The cheese situation
I think is pretty well taken care of in what I have already stated to the committee. It
does not make very much difference how it was accomplished, but in view of the subsidy paid by Ontario and the price which we obtained from Great Britain, and the premium provided, the farmer is getting approximately what he asked for in Ontario, and that is somewhere between 17 and 19 cents a pound for his cheese, depending on the quality.
Supply-Agriculture

So far as the butter situation is concerned, I do not think there is any limit to the amount of butter that we can get rid of from Canada within the limit of what we are likely to produce and can produce.
But I would point out this: Britain asked us last fall if we could deliver to her last fall 10 million pounds of butter. The reply we gave was to the effect that if she needed 10 million pounds of butter we would deliver it to her, even if we had to put our own people on rations in order to do it, just as the people of Britain were being rationed over there. We said: "What would you pay for it?" If I remember rightly, and the officials here will correct me if I am wrong, Britain at that time said 21 cents, or what would be equivalent to 21 cents in our money. Butter was selling in Canada at that time for 24 cents. We did not say to Britain: "We will send you the butter because it is here in Canada." But we said to her: "We are prepared to send the butter if you want it, and we will accept what you are prepared to pay for it."
Then they asked us what effect the shipment of 10 million pounds of butter to Britain would likely have upon the production and delivery of cheese. We said it would probably have a detrimental effect; and when they asked, "In what way?" we said that if we left our market open here and took 10 million pounds off the market, which then was said to be a little short, we would probably have a price for butter in Canada this winter and probably early next summer which would greatly encourage the production of butter, and if somebody would take our butter at the higher price that we were likely to get on our local market as long as there was a shortage here, then that could be justified, but that if we were going to have to deliver the butter to Great Britain, we would have difficulty in taking just 21 cents for the butter which we were producing in this country throughout the year, and that the production of butter would at the same time be shortening the production of cheese. Then Britain said that they did not want the butter, they wanted cheese, and they were not prepared to pay any higher price to get butter from Canada.
May I say just briefly, because it is almost eleven o'clock, that Great Britain has contracted for all of the butter of New Zealand and Australia and all the butter they can get elsewhere, and they would take at a price any butter we might have by way of surplus in Canada. But we believe that, in so far as the price itself is concerned and getting the price which the farmer must have at the present time if he is going to be able to produce butter in this country to advantage, it will be

necessary for us during this coming year at least, whatever we do next year, to keep our butter production about equal to our butter consumption in Canada, and get our cheese production just as high as we can get it in Canada. We think that, by doing those two things, we shall be doing the best we possibly can as farmers to serve Britain and at the same time serve our farmers, and our country generally.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, February 28, 1941.