1945-11-15

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as a member of parliament I should like to raise a question of privilege which is of vital importance to Canada. The newspapers of last evening and this morning carried a report of an interview with Sir Harold Alexander, who has been selected a'S the next governor general of Canada. The Montreal Gazette has this

heading: "Canadians met by Alexander." The Montreal Daily Star of yesterday has this heading:
Alexander eager for job in Canada. Hopes to cement U.S. friendship.
Then in the Ottawa Citizen of last evening we find this heading:
Alexander hopes he will aid relations. New viceroy, preparing for journey here, "Thinks there is a real job" in Canada.
I will read two paragraphs from the dispatch published in the Montreal Gazette, as follows:
In an interview at his home near Windsor Forest he expressed hope that his post in Ottawa will aid in cementing still further the friendship among Britain, Canada and the United States.
An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I should like the hon. member to state briefly the question-of privilege he would like to put before the house.


Mr. POULIOT:: Yes, sir; but in the first place I must read the two paragraphs to which I object most strongly. I have read the first one, and I shall now read the second one, as follows:
The 54-year old- field marshal-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: The hon. member must be permitted to state his question of privilege.


Jean-François Pouliot: This reads:
The 54-year old field marshal considers his military career ended but he said he was looking forward to his duties at Ottawa because "I think there is a real job there".
I regret that the future governor general of Canada-


Mr. HOMUTH:: I think it ill behooves any hon. member to discuss the future governor general of Canada.


James Horace King: I should like the hon. member to state briefly his question of privilege. I do not think the hon. member is violating the rules by talking about the distinguished and gallant gentleman he has just mentioned, since he has not yet been sworn in as governor general.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am greatly surprised that those who object to my question of privilege are precisely those who were shouting when the Minister of Finance held that the government obtained the power from the crown. Sir, as a member of parliament, as a member of the Canadian House of Commons, I resent very deeply what has been said by Sir Harold Alexander in his country place near Windsor Forest. The governor general of Canada is the personal representative-

Atomic Energy-Agreed Declaration


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Frequently members rise on a question of privilege to refer to a matter of great national importance. Surely this is not of that importance, and the hon. gentleman ought to realize it.


Jean-François Pouliot: When the hon. member for St. Paul's passes the book to the hon. gentleman, it is the night informing the darkness.


James Horace King: I must insist on the hon. member stating his question of privilege; otherwise I shall have to ask him to resume his seat. I would ask him to state his question of privilege, make a personal explanation, and leave the matter at that.


Jean-François Pouliot: Exactly, sir; that is what I am doing. I am stating that now the governor general of Canada is described as the personal representative of the king, who reigns and does not govern. Therefore, the governor general has nothing to do with the executive business of the government. I consider that what Sir Harold Alexander said is a personal reflection on the Prime Minister, who is now in Washington. I hope that the gentleman in question will take the trouble to meditate and to learn in silence the duties ' of his new job before giving other interviews to the press about matters with which he is not at all familiar.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Department of External Affairs has just received over the wire the text of a declaration signed this morning by the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister of Canada, and I think it will be of interest to hon. members to have the text of this declaration at once. It is as follows:
Atomic Energy Agreed Declaration by the President of the United States,
the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and
the Prime Minister of Canada
The President of the United States, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and the Prime Minister of Canada, have issued the following statement:
1.	We recognize that the application of recent scientific discoveries to the methods and practice of war has placed at the disposal of mankind means of destruction hitherto unknown, against
which there can be no adequate military defence, and in the employment of which no single nation can in fact have a monopoly.
2.	We desire to emphasize that the responsibility for devising means to ensure that the new discoveries shall be used for the benefit of mankind, instead of as a means of destruction, rests not on our nations^ alone, but upon the whole civilized world. Nevertheless, the progress that we have made in the development and use of atomic energy demands that w-e take an initiative in the matter, and we have accordingly met together to consider the possibility of international action:
(a)	to prevent the use of atomic energy for destructive purposes;
(b)	to promote the use of recent and future advances in scientific knowledge, particularly in the utilization of atomic energy, for peaceful and humanitarian ends.
3.	We are aware that the only complete protection for the civilized -world from the destructive use of scientific knowledge lies in the prevention of war. No system of safeguards that can be devised will of itself provide an effective guarantee against production of atomic weapons by a nation bent on aggression. Nor can we ignore the possibility of the development of other weapons, or of new methods of warfare, which may constitute as great a threat to civilization as the military use of atomic energy.
4.	Representing, as we do, the three countries which possess the knowledge essential to the use of atomic energy, we declare at the outset our willingness, as a first contribution, to proceed with the exchange of fundamental scientific inlormation and the interchange of scientists anu scientific literature foT peaceful ends with any nation that will fully reciprocate.
5.	We believe that the fruits of scientific research should be made available to all nations, and that freedom of investigation and free interchange of ideas are essential to the progress of knowledge. In pursuance of this policy, the basic scientific information essential to the development _of atomic energy for peaceful purposes has already been made available to the world. It is our intention that all further information of this character that may become available from time to time shall be similarly treated. We trust that other nations will adopt the same policy, thereby creating an atmosphere of reciprocal confidence in which political agreement and cooperation will flourish.
G. We have considered the questioii of the disclosure of detailed information concerning the practical industrial application of atomic energy. The military exploitation of atomic energy depends, in large part, upon the same methods and processes as would be required for industrial uses.
We are not convinced that the spreading of the specialized information regarding the practical application of atomic energy, before it is possible to devise effective, reciprocal, and enforceable safeguards acceptable to all nations, would contribute to a constructive solution of the problem of the atomic bomb. On the contrary, we think it might have the opposite effect. We are, however, prepared to share, on a reciprocal basis with others of the united nations, detailed information concerning the practical industrial application of atomic energy just as soon as effective enforceable safeguards against its use for destructive purposes can be devised.
[Stage Direction]
Atomic Energy-Agreed Declaration
7.	In order to attain the most effective means of entirely eliminating the use of atomic energy for destructive purposes and promoting its widest use for industrial and humanitarian purposes, we are of the opinion that at the earliest practicable date a commission should be set up under the united nations organization to prepare recommendations for submission to the organization.
The commission should be instructed to proceed, with the utmost dispatch and should be authorized to submit recommendations from time to time dealing with separate phases of its work.
in particular, the commission should make specific proposals:
(a)	for extending between all nations the exchange of basic scientific information for peaceful ends,
(b)	for control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes,
(c)	for the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction,
(d)	for effective safeguards by way of inspection and other means to protect complying states against the hazards of violations and evasions.
8.	The work of the commission should proceed by separate stages, the successful completion of each one of which will develop the necessary confidence of the world before the next stage is undertaken. Specifically it is considered that the commission might well devote its attention first to the wide exchange of scientists and scientific information, and as a second stage to the development of full knowledge concerning natural resources of raw materials.
3. Faced with the terrible realities of the application of science to destruction, every nation will realize more urgently than before the overwhelming need to maintain the rule of law among nations and to banish the scourge of war from the earth. This can only be brought about by giving wholehearted support to the united nations organization, and by consolidating and extending its authority, thus creating conditions of mutual trust in which all peoples will be free to devote themselves to the arts of peace. It is our firm resolve to work without reservation to achieve these ends.
The City of Washington,
The White House,
November 15, 1945.
Harry S. Truman President of the United States C. R. Attlee
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom W. L. Mackenzie King Prime Minister of Canada
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: May I ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he anticipates that this declaration will be followed1 by any step to be taken in this parliament?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have nothing to add to the declaration. It puts emphasis on the declared intent of the president and the two prime ministers to promote the setting up of a commission. I would assume that all concrete proposals recommended by the com-

mission in that regard will be submitted, as are all these international arrangements of major importance, for the consideration of the houses of parliament.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: We have just listened to what I believe can be regarded as an historic statement, and I am sure that hon. members on every side of the house welcome it.
Only last evening I was reading the addresses which have been given recently by Professor Oliphant of Brimingham university, on the subject of atomic energy. The other day I was reading some of the statements which were issued by scientists in the United States, and the statement we have just heard is, I believe, in accordance with the feeling of the scientists whose experiments assisted in the discovery of atomic knowledge and its application to purposes of destruction. I believe that the emphasis placed by the statement of the three leaders on the reciprocal exchange of scientific information among all nations is well received by this parliament and that it will be so received by the world. I want to express my pleasure' at hearing this statement. I want to do something else: I want to extend congratulations to our own Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and to the President of the United States upon the unanimous decision they have thus reached.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Is there any ruling making it compulsory for employees of Canadian National Railways and/or Canadian National telegraphs to work overtime, on Sundays or outside the regular hours of duty, when instructed to d-o so by a superior officer? If so, what are the terms of such regulation?
2.	Are any disciplinary measures imposed if an employee refuses to work such overtime? If so, what measures?
3.	Do C.N.R. employee-management relations come under the jurisdiction of the federal ol provincial departments of labour?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: The Canadian National Railway Company advises as follows:
1.	It is customary, in the general interest of the company's service for employees to work overtime when requested to do so by a superior officer.
2.	The imposition of disciplinary measures after investigation and where justified by the circumstances of the case, rests within the

Questions
discretion of officials responsible for the conduct and operation of the railway and its subsidiaries.
3.	Cases of disputes, which cannot be composed between management and employees may be made the subject of an appeal to the federal Department of Labour.


SURPLUS WAR ASSETS-CORVETTES AND FAIRMILES
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Does the War Assets Corporation sell corvettes and Fairmiles by auction, tender, or is a set price fixed by the War Assets Corporation?
2.	Are these ships sold in running condition?
3.	Are these ships stripped of everything except running gear?
4.	What equipment is sold as part of these ships?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	A set price is fixed by the War Assets Corporation.
2.	Ships are sold with ordinary running gear except secret equipment or articles still required for the purpose of the Department of National Defence (Navy). Guns are either removed or rendered useless.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Answered by No. 2.


DUTIES ON FARM IMPLEMENTS
Mr. McKAY:: 1.	Since the discontinuation of the duty on imported farm implements have any tractors been imparted from the United States?
2.	If so, how many have been imported for each of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?
3.	Were any farmers purchasing tractors required to pay duty? If so, how much were they required to pay and why?
Mr. M-cCANN:
1.	Yes.
2.	From July 1, 1944 to September 30, 1945,
as follows:
Province	No.
Manitoba	 4,326
Saskatchewan	 6.808
Alberta	 4.743
15.877
3.	The department is not aware of any case in which duty has been collected by the crown on tractors since the 26th June, 1944.


WHEAT-EXPORT PRICE
Mr. THATCHER:: What steps have been taken by the government with respect to. increasing the export price on Canadian wheat from $1.55?
Mr. MaeKINNON: There is no "world market price" in existence at the present time, in the sense that there is a wheat futures market operating anywhere which reflects exclusively or even primarily world wheat market conditions. The only open futures markets at the present time are in the United States which reflect, primarily domestic conditions within the United States. For example, the December future on the Chicago market has advanced 10J cents since the Canadian export price policy was announced on September 19. The Chicago December future is now resting at its ceiling of $1.80i, beyond which it cannot advance under United States ceiling regulations. No change in the Canadian export price has been considered for the present.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many lawyers have been appointed as special prosecutors in. connection with prosecutions in respect of infractions of the wartime prices and trade board regulations since the inception of the board?
2.	What has been the total amount expended in connection with such prosecutions for legal fees, by provinces?
3.	(a) Since the inception of the board, how many prosecutions have been proceeded with, by provinces; (b) how many convictions have been registered thereon; (c) in how many cases, by provinces, was imprisonment imposed without the option of a fine; (d) what was the total amount of fines imposed?


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD- INVESTIGATORS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many, (a) investigators; (b) other officials, officers and staff, are now in the employ of the wartime prices and trade board?
2.	What amount has been paid out since the inception of the board to date, in respect of such employees, for (a) salaries; (b) fees;
(c)	expenses?
3.	What is the total expenditure to date since the inception of the board for (a) rentals; (b) other expenditures excepting salaries, fees and. expenses?


CANNED GRAPEFRUIT JUICE
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	During the fiscal year ended March 31, 1945, how many cases of canned grapefruit juice were bought by the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation?
2.	From whom was the grapefruit juice bought, and at what price?



Questions as Orders for Returns
3.	On what dates was it delivered?
4.	Have payments been made for the quantities delivered? If so, on what dates were such payments made, to whom were the payments made, and what was the amount of each payment?
5.	What amounts are still owed by Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation for purchases of canned grapefruit juice during the said fiscal year, and to whom are such amounts owed?


COMMODITY PRICES STABILIZATION CORPORATION- INVESTIGATORS
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	How many investigators have been employed by the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation Limited, since the corporation was first organized?
2.	What are the names of said investigators; for what period of time was each employed; how many are employed at the present time?
3.	In the case of those no longer employed, which ones resigned, and which ones were dismissed, and for what causes were any such investigators dismissed ?


PURCHASE OF MOTOR VEHICLES FOR WAR PURPOSES
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	What types of army vehicles and what quantity of each were purchased from, (a) Ford; (b) General Motors; (c) Chrysler, during the war ?
2.	What was the average price paid for each type of vehicle?
3.	How many of each vehicle were delivered to each of the departments of national defence during 1943?


VETERANS' LAND ACT-FARM MACHINERY
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	What was the quantity of farm machinery purchased by the Department of Veterans Affairs for distribution to soldiers undeT the Veterans' Land Act in each province, for each of the years 1944 and 1945?
2.	What quantity of such machinery has been distributed to date?



DOMESTIC HELP AND NURSING SERVICES

Mr. CHURCH:: What is being done by the government to provide, (a) domestic help; (b) nursing services for those with large families, and for the sick?



EXTRADITION OF CRIMINALS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary
of State for External Affairs) moved:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the treaty for the extradition of criminals between Canada and United States of America signed at Washington, April 29, 1942, and the protocol annexed thereto which was signed at Ottawa, October 3, 1945, and that this house do approve the same.

He said:	Mr. Speaker, on moving this resolution to-day it was not my intention to initiate a debate, but, because numerous representations have been received from interested parties, to ask if it would be the pleasure of the house to refer it to the committee on external affairs. It is a matter upon which I assume there will foe some debate, and I think it might be helpful, if before that debate is had in the house, those who have representations to make regarding the treaty and the protocol have the privilege of being heard before the committee on external affairs. If it be agreeable to the house, I would move that the treaty and protocol be referred to the committee on external affairs, to provide this opportunity to interested parties not members of the house to make their representations before we in the house undertake to debate the merits of the resolution.
Grote Stirling: Do I
understand that the minister is asking unanimous consent to proceed with the statement here now?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; I am asking if it would be the pleasure of the house to refer the treaty and the protocol to the committee on external affairs, reserving our debate upon its merits for the time when we would have the report of the committee and would be able to make use of the representations that would be made to the committee by interested parties who have expressed a keen desire to be heard on the propriety or otherwise of ratifying the treaty.


Grote Stirling: I take that to mean that the statement which the minister of necessity will have to make in introducing this resolution will be made before the committee?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; it will be made in the house when the report of the committee is submitted to the house. If it be not agreeable to have it thus referred, I suggest that the debate on the merits of the resolution be adjourned. I do not believe it would be in the interest of dispatch of business to have two long debates on the merits of the proposal. I think it would be disappointing to many who have expressed concern over this treaty if they did not have an opportunity to submit their views to the committee, which could report them to the house as further material for the determination of such action as the house might see fit then to take.


Mr. ADAMSON:: It is simply a motion to refer it to the committee?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Simply a motion to refer it to the committee for the hearing of interested parties.

Extradition oj Criminals


Grote Stirling: I do not remember any occasion on which this method has been adopted. It seems to me that on other occasions ia ministerial statement has been made in this house, possibly relegating any discussion thereon to a later day, and then the matter has been referred to a committee. I suggest under the circumstances, since this matter was not mentioned last evening as part of the business for to-day, that it might be well if the government would agree to allow it to stand until to-morrow, and consideration could be given what the minister has said.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: The other evening when the leaders of groups in the house and the whips met, I understand it was suggested there were certain matters that might well be referred directly to committees, and that this was one of them, the purpose being to enable interested parties to be heard, and to expedite the business of the house. Then, as the Minister of Justice has indicated, when the matter in question is ready for discussion in the house, it can be considered fully, and thus considerable time would be saved. I believe that was understood.


Mr. HACKETT:: In the event of the matter going to the committee, is it the government's intention to proceed with it before Christmas?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker. The government feels that it is in honour bound to put the treaty and the protocol before the houses of parliament for decision by them at the earliest possible moment. It is fully intended to have a decision reached during the course of this session.


Thomas Langton Church: This is the fiftieth day of the session and the house has had no opportunity of discussing a $400,000 item for external affairs. I contended the other day that before parliament approves any more treaties, no matter of what description, there should be a constitutional change. We had an example of the unsatisfactory state of affairs in the interval between the two wars, when Canada was bound at Locarno by the Kellogg note, and by other considerations that became a matter of treaty. Certain covenants of the league of nations and others were also agreed to, over the head of parliament while parliament was in session; as a result of that policy we passed certain sanctions affecting Ethiopia and Italy, and then Canada was forced to annul them. I said the other day, in connection with civil aviation, that there should be a constitutional change that would prevent any minister of the crown from acting extraterritorially in the signing of agreements and protocols and treaties while parliament is 47696-I35J
in session, or without parliament first being called upon to pass upon such matters. There are no doubt similar treaties with some of the other dominions and the United States on this very matter.
Altogether I object to the way that external affairs business is being conducted over the head of parliament. We are supposed to follow the practice that obtains in the parliament of Great Britain. There they had a long debate on the atomic bomb and long debates on matters akin to this, and such matters are being discussed in the House of Commons there all the time. Here we are in the fiftieth day of the session faced with a treaty which will bind this country, while other financial treaties may involve us in millions of dollars in the years to come. I object to this sort of thing. I repeat, there should be a constitutional change to provide that no minister of the crown shall have the right to sign any treaty without reference to parliament. As the minister stated the other day, according to the British North America Act, 1867, parliament consists of the queen, the Senate and the House of Commons, and we have no information about this treaty. There was a short discussion last spring but I have never seen the treaty.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If it is the desire that it should stand until to-morrow I would ask that it be so dealt with.
Motion stands.



WORLD TRADE CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
INTERNATIONAL ACTION FOR REDUCTION <5f TARIFFS -POSITION OF NEGOTIATIONS
On the orders of the day:
Grote Stirling: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether there have been any negotiations between the government of Canada and other governments regarding the convening of a world trade conference. If so, what is the present state of these negotiations? I ask the question particularly because of the minister's statement on Monday that within the last few days the government "have been given substantial ground for believing that the prospects of early international action for the reduction of tariffs and other barriers to world trade are considerably improved."


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Acting Prime Minister) :: There have been discussions regarding the lowering of trade barriers between countries, and conferences in which Canadian representatives have participated, but so far no formal negotiations have been begun in which this government is taking part. We are,
British Import Licences

however, being kept informed of the developing situation as between other governments. As I stated last Monday, I am not yet in a position to announce when negotiations are likely to begin.



MOTOR VEHICLES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Grote Stirling: Can the Acting Prime Minister tell the house when it is anticipated that tires for motor vehicles will be released for ordinary civilian use? At the same time, would he indicate to the house whether Canada is represented on the "rubber study group" which the press indicates is meeting in London this month to review the situation with respect to production and distribution of natural and synthetic rubber?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have to ask for time in which to get the answers to these questions, since I did not receive any notice of them.



PRIME MINISTER ATTLEE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister or the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs what arrangements, if any, have been made for the visit to Ottawa of the Right Hon. Clement Attlee?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot indicate the arrangements at the moment. The cabinet took steps to have a committee of civil servants make recommendations regarding the arrangements, but perhaps nothing final can be done about it until the Prime Minister gets back.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: The press states that he will address both houses of parliament next Monday. That is the point in which I was particularly interested.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is certainly the intention, but the question is whether it will be at three o'clock or twelve o'clock noon, and that is not settled yet.
[Later-A


James Lorimer Ilsley: I should like to say to the house that word has been received from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that he is returning on Saturday at 12.45 p.m. accom-

panied by Right Hon. Clement Attlee; that Mr. Attlee will address both houses of parliament in this chamber on Monday afternoon at three o'clock, and that his speech will be broadcast. The regular sitting on Monday will begin at half-past four in the afternoon.



BRITISH IMPORT LICENCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I wish to address to the Acting Prime Minister a question of which I have been unable to give notice owing, to lack of time. I should like to read a sentence from the Financial Post of November 17, which went on the stand to-day, and which I think indicates a matter of urgency concerning which I desire to put a question to the hon. gentleman:
Complete loss of the British and possibly other sterling, area markets now faces scores of Canadian manufacturers and other exporters as a result of recent cancellations of import licences by the United Kingdom authorities.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: The hon. gentleman is not supposed to quote newspapers.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Unless he is the hon. member for Temdscouata (Mr. Pouliot).


James Horace King: The object of a question should be to seek information and not ta give it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Having committed this error, which I regret, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, perhaps not today but to-morrow, he will make a statement to the house on this matter, which, I submit, is an urgent one?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will consult my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, under whose jurisdiction the matter more properly comes, and if it is felt desirable to make a statement, one of us will do so. I have very little knowledge of the matter myself.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: May I supplement briefly what the Acting Prime Minister has just said? I have read the article in the Financial Post. It is a matter which has been under discussion not for days or weeks but for months by the senior officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce and by myself. We 'have been in touch with the people in Canada who are allegedly affected.

Transport Act
We have participated with them in representations that they have made, and through our own sources have made representations on the matters referred to in the article read by the hon. member. We have not reached finality in our conversations or in the representations which we have made. This is a matter of great importance but I do not think it is one that can be dealt with immediately; however, it is receiving continuing and earnest attention not only by the people affected in Canada but by this government.



TRANSPORT ACT, 1938 JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN WATER CARRIERS IN MACKENZIE RIVER AREA

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, November 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chevrier for the second reading of bill No. 32, to amend the Transport Act, 1938.
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, as one who has surveyed the Mackenzie river valley and the adjacent territory on several occasions I feel it my duty to pass some comment on the bill introduced yesterday by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). First as one who has a very warm feeling for the great north country, comprising approximately one million square miles, I want to compliment the minister on bringing the bill into the house. I am sure that the people living in the area up and down the whole Mackenzie river and its tributaries, the mining men, the prospectors and the business men, will all take hope out of the purposes of this bill.
In a brief but important statement the minister indicated that the chief difficulty to be overcome to-day is to be found in the high freight rates on goods going into and coming out of that country, and with that I agree. He mentioned particularly the rail rate from Edmonton to Waterways, the southern terminus of navigation on that route, and particularly the water rate now being charged on oil. Both are detrimental to the expansion and development of that great country. If the country is opened up, as it can be and will be if the freight rates are lowered and transportation facilities increased and improved, I can see a substantial development in that country.
If I were a citizen of Edmonton, that great city of the middle north, I should feel proud of the possibilities for that city which might result from an adjustment and improvement in freight rates and transportation facilities. Edmonton has to-day a population of something like 150.000, but having travelled through that area and knowing some of its potentialities I should be surprised if in due course it did not become a city with a population of 250,000 or 300,000.
I want to thank the minister for his earnestness in presenting this bill. I also want to say a word about the few remarks made by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). I am always amazed at the hon. member's grasp of public affairs and his intimate knowledge of their details. He is a most indefatigable worker and I for one always like to hear him. He always presents something pertinent to the question. He said yesterday that water route rates are not under the control of the Department of Transport. I hope the minister will see to it that water route rates everywhere throughout Canada come under the control of the department, because water routes have a great deal to do with the development of the country.
It is not my intention to speak at any great length, but I feel that I should say something about the north country, and particularly the Mackenzie river valley. Paragraph (hh), which is to be added to the Transport Act reads as follows:
"Mackenzie river" means all rivers, streams, lakes and other waters within the watershed of the Mackenzie river.
The Mackenzie river basin is wholly within the boundaries of Canada. It is the largest river wholly within any one country in America. The Mississippi river is not wholly within the United States. The Milk river, one of its source tributaries, flows through Canada. The Mackenzie river is wholly within Canada and drains an area of about 525.000 square miles. It is the longest fresh water route in the world. I believe the total fresh water route on the Mackenzie is well on to 3.500 miles, if one takes in the length of the water route on lake Athabaska. Great Slave lake, Great Bear lake and the Peace river. From Hudson Hope on the Peace river, one of the most beautiful little hamlets I have ever seen, at the end of the great Peace river rapids to its mouth on the Rocher river, where with the Rocher it forms the Slave river, is a distance of at least six hundred miles, and every mile of that six hundred miles is navigable with the exception of four miles at Vermilion chutes, about which I shall say a word in a few minutes. Then there is a four hundred mile safe water route on a tributary, the Liard river, right up to Port Nelson. This is the longest fresh water route in the world, barred only at two places, at Vermilion chutes and at the rapids between Fort Fitzgerald and Fort Smith. So this river, its tributaries and its basin are of major importance in the development of this country.
Transport Act

This bill has to do with freight rates. Freight itself is vitally important to any transportation company operating in that area, and the only way they can lower their rates is through the development of new business. That area is open to the greatest potential new business I know of anywhere in America, and I have been over a great deal of it. It is the last great mineral area in the world. Yesterday the minister mentioned Yellowknife. When I visited Yellowknife there were seven gold-producing mines there, several of them very rich in ore. There is the Con mine; there is Yellowknife itself; there is the Negus mine operated by a group in Toronto of which I believe Hon. Charles McCrea is president; the Thompson-Lunmark mine; the Great Slave Lake mine, and others all round about, and so far they have only scratched the area. When any hon. member of the House of Commons visits the town of Yellowknife he will be surprised. It is a thriving, businesslike centre, and all through that area I saw vast amounts of equipment made down here in the east. So I know the factories of Ontario can increase their production and give more employment as that country is opened up. For that reason I am strongly behind any programme to lower the freight rates in that country, which to-day are altogether too high.
The Yellowknife area contains a great many gold mines, and further east along the north shore of Great Slave Lake whither I had planned to go but could not get transportation, I am told is located the largest bench of spodumene, the ore from which lithium comes, anywhere in America. If that is the case it will not be long until that is developed. Then further north up the Coppermine river, where there is the most beautiful falls anyone could see, which rejoice in the not very euphonious name of Bloody Falls-perhaps that name will be changed later-the country is full of copper. Up there I met representatives of one of the greatest copper companies in America. I talked with their engineers, and they told me the potentialities were tremendous. They were speaking of taking the copper out to the Arctic ocean and by boat from there around Cape Barrow, away up at the far northern corner of Alaska.
I must not delay the house longer talking about the vast potentialities of that country in regard to mineral wealth. It is also known everywhere for fish and for power. Bight now they send the fish from Great Bear lake and Great Slave lake by plane to Waterways and from there to Chicago and New York; and the demand is so great they cannot fill it. Those lakes are full of fish, wonderful

fish. I was greatly surprised at the Great Bear lake fish. They are hard but they taste sweet; an amazing fish. I have no doubt that as time goes on, if the lakes can continue to supply those fish, a great trade will be developed in flying fish out from that area. That is all new wealth. As for power, there are several magnificent power sites. The Slave river power is good for half a million horsepower; the Sans Souci rapids on the Mackenzie river I should say would be good for several million horse-power; the falls on the Hay river, which are 106 feet high, are good for a great deal of power. The whole country is full of vast power possiblities. If we as Canadians can only wake up to the opening of that country and its development, as is our heritage,. I can see a vast amount of -business coming out of it for plants down here in Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere. It can also- mean a great deal to the growth of its great focal point, the city of Edmonton. There is no telling how large Edmonton will grow if that country is opened up as it should be.
To-day, however, the freight rates hold it back. The minister said the rate on oil today is $30 a ton. That is 15 cents a gallon, or just about twice as much in freight as the oil is worth at Norman Wells; for I believe they told me they were selling bunker oil, which is what the minister referred to, at about six or more cents a gallon. It may have gone up since then, but when- they were selling gasoline at 28 cents a gallon, six to ten cents would be a normal price for bunker oil. Well, sir, if they are paying a freight rate of 15 cents a gallon on bunker oil it is too high,. The minister said the rate had been $20 a ton but to-day apparently it is $30. That is a fifty per cent increase in the freight rate, and certainly that is too much without the transport board inquiring into whether or not that should be the proper rate. I cannot believe that Imperial Oil would charge that much, because they were very wise; they purchased quite a number of United States steel barges, and got them at a low rate. I discussed the matter with the colonel in charge of United States equipment at Waterways, and my memory is that he said he would sell those barges for $17,000 each. That figure may be too low; it should not be taken as accurate, but that is my memory. Too many of those barges were cut to pieces with acetylene torches and shipped out of the country.
I did my best to create public sentiment for the purchase of those barges, and the same in regard to United States tugs. The Mackenzie river never had barges or tugs that

Transport Act
were equal to the tugs and barges the United States government used on that river during the war. They sent them up there because they could not be bothered with the slow dispatch of business on the river. The tugs were of the tunnel type, with the wheel coming up underneath in the centre, thereby protecting it against damage from sand bars or rocks. I am certainly sorry if very many of those tugs and barges were sent out of the country. They were for sale and should have been kept here, and I congratulate Imperial Oil on having purchased some of them. The matter of transportation is very important, and these big barges and fast tugs would help.
I say this in a friendly way, but I should like the minister and the Minister of Public Works or any other minister having to do with assisting traffic on the river to pay a visit there. Go together; you will enjoy your trip. Go down by boat and come out by air. You will have a wonderful trip down the river from Waterways; you will find it a great- education. By air, of course, you will come out very quickly; you will do it in a day. It will take mtany days to go down, but you will enjoy every minute of it.
I want to point out to the minister how he can cut down freight rates, and then he can take up the matter with the minister in charge. In the first place the freight rate from Edmonton to Waterways is an outrage. It is 305 miles from Edmonton to Waterways by rail. I have nothing but compliments for the company for building the road. But when the railway arrives at Waterways it stops three miles short of Fort McMurray, at the junction of the Clearwater and Athabaska rivers. The town of Waterways grew up because the railway stopped at that point. The railway company should have been censured, and the board of railway commissioners also, for permitting that railway to stop three miles short of where it should have gone. Then the railway company was permitted to call this an uncompleted railroad and charge exorbitant freight rates. I have not the rates in mind, but I discussed the matter with shippers at Waterways and every one was loud in his condemnation of the prices charged to ship freight from Edmonton to Waterways. If I were an Edmontonian I would strenuously object to these freight rates, because they retard the growth of Edmonton by keeping down the development of the country to the north.
So much for the railway. The minister mentioned it yesterday and I hope he takes this matter under advisement. As I say, the freight rates from Edmonton to Waterways are far too high; they are a detriment to
business. This bill will give the transport commissioners authority to deal with the whole freight business in that country and I hope they will do what they can to see that this rate comes down.
From Waterways north, or from Fort McMurray, which is just three miles away, to Aklavik, is 1,660 miles. Aklavik itself is sixty miles south of the ocean. This town is located on the Peel river, which is part of the Mackenzie river delta. That is quite a distance, and the only obstruction on that whole route are the rapids at Fort Fitzgerald. When I went through that country I was humiliated that we had not done more to develop it. When the boat leaves Waterways it travels north for 287 miles before any obstruction is met. It then arrives at Fort Fitzgerald, where everything has to be dumped out and taken across a portage of sixteen miles. That is certainly not the way to build up this country. I must pay a great compliment to Ryan brothers, who operate over the portage, and also Northern Transportation, who now operate over the portage at Fort Fitzgerald to Fort Smith. But that does not detract from my statement of a moment ago that the obstruction which necessitates the portage should be eliminated.
There are two ways of doing this. A canal of about sixteen or perhaps eighteen miles could be built. I made the best survey I could as to where this canal could be built, and it would seem to be a simple engineering matter to canalize this area. Or we could follow the plan adopted by our American cousins when they arrived at Fort Fitzgerald. They were annoyed to such an extent at what they found that they sent up gigantic trucks upon which they could load their tugs and boats. The roadway was improved and by the means of tractors they were able to take these boats to Fort Smith. If they could do that, I do not see why we could not either build a canal or a marine railway. Then boats coming to Fort Fitzgerald from Waterways could continue to Fort Smith, either through the canal or over the marine railway, and get into the river at that point. If we had that, we would then have a route 1,660 miles long without an obstruction. That would be a credit to Canada.
That is one way to cut down the freight rates. Canada has done a lot for the rest of the country; not so much has been done for the north west. We have done a lot to help the east, and I am all for it, but I am going to go a little further and ask that help be given to the people of the west-and the far northwest. This is one way in which we can do something. This obstruction at Fort Fitz-
Transport Act

gerald could be eliminated so that commerce going north would not have to break bulk. That would help to bring down the freight rates, and I do not know of anything else that would do more to open up that country than a reduction of the freight rates.
At the same time the traffic would be speeded up. The Northern Transportation company owns two boats, the Northern King and the Northern Queen. The Northern Queen makes the trip from Waterways to Fort Fitzgerald and the Northern King runs north from Fort Smith to either Yellowknife or Fort Norman. I think it could go right down to Aklavik, but I do not know whether it does. The Northern King and the Northern Queen are both diesel engine boats. I went north to Fort Fitzgerald on the Northern Queen. The large Hudson's Bay company boats are not diesel engine boats, but I hope they will get this type of boat, because it permits of more speed and that is something we must have in that country. I do not want anyone to think that I am saying anything unkindly about the Hudson's Bay company. Far from it; because I have nothing but praise for their service and the pioneering work they have done in that country. They deserve unstinted praise for what they have done through the years in opening up that country without any help.
Once you are aboard the boat at Waterways you may have difficulty getting out of the harbour because of sand bars. Then when you get into the Athabaska river you at once run into further difficulties unless there is high water. First you must pass over a limestone ledge, and then there are sand bars to be avoided in the river. The sand bars should not be there, but they are, and the boats must zigzag from one side of the river to the other. You would be surprised at the circuitous route that must be followed. If that route could be shortened they would be able to cut down the freight rates.
When your ship comes close to Take Athabaska you find right in front of you what is known as the Embarras river, but the boat turns off to the right and travels about sixty miles before it enters lake Athabaska. I do not think it would be over five or ten miles at the most that you would have to travel to enter the lake through an Embarras route. You would then strike the lake at a point opposite Chipewyan. If an Embarras channel could be opened there by the Department of Public Works or whatever department has this matter under their control, there would be a saving of at least fifty miles and a consequent speeding up of traffic.

Then at the outlet of Great Slave lake, about forty miles west, there are some rapids which in low water give the shipping companies some difficulty. They can go up the rapids, but they have to pull themselves up. Then there are the Sans Souei rapids, which are about 100 miles northwest of Norman Wells. Here again they have to pull themselves up the rapids. Some hon. members may not be familiar with how this is done. They pick up a buoy attached to a cable in the water and wind the cable around the capstan. They then start the engine and in that way are able to pull the boat up the rapids.
The minister should interest himself in speeding up traffic on the river by the elimination of obstructions. A little while ago I referred to some small rapids on the Peace river about 200 miles west of its junction with the Rocher. This river flows out of lake Athabaska for about forty miles, and then the Peace river comes in and together they form the Slave. Two hundred miles up the Peace river-and sometimes I think the magnitude of these rivers is not appreciated- you come to Vermilion Chutes, fifty miles down the river from Fort Vermilion. Those chutes are only four miles long, with the water dropping twenty-four feet. We have owned that country since 1870, and it is amazing that those chutes have not been canalized. It is just an ABC job to go around those rapids, and if we did that, a boat from Hudson Hope, another four hundred miles up the river, could sail right down to Fort Fitzgerald, and if we had a canal there too it could sail right down to Aklavik. What would that mean? At Aklavik I was told they pay $140 a ton in freight on coal-and I can well believe it, because the boats coming in there are not equipped1 to carry coal and. carry only a few bags at a time. You cannot develop a country on a $140 a ton freight rate on coal. But if the Vermilion rapids were out of the way, and the rapids at Fort Fitzgerald, Hudson Hope coal, which could be bought at Hudson Hope for five or six or seven or eight dollars a ton-that may be too low or too high- could be transported at a freight rate from Hudson Hope to Aklavik that would be a mere bagatelle compared with the rate to-day. That is another point I wish the minister to take note of, because the people there must have coal or oil, and that brings up the point the minister mentioned about oil.
There is a good market in that country for oil stoves. I found many people there using a stove-I have forgotten the name, but it is like the stove sold in Toronto by the Addison industry. The minister will know that industry because it did a big job during the war.

Transport Act
I saw one of these stoves in Doctor Livingstone's house at Aklavik, and in the hospital there, and all the people who have used it have great praise for it. Perhaps that far north country can be taken care of by oil from Norman Wells, and if it can, well and good. On the other hand they must be able to buy these stoves at a reasonable rate, and the present package freight rate is away too high. I hope that as a result of this bill the conditions will improve. In any event, the far north country will be a big market for stoves made down in the east. I do not know where the Addison company makes its stove. The Coleman company also makes a similar stove, and there may be other companies. Perhaps I should not have mentioned any names, but I have mentioned these two lines because they are examples of what other companies may be doing. Thirty dollars a ton for fuel oil is too high if we are going to build up any country. We should do all we can to reduce the freight rate and to develop a faster and safer route to the north.
There is one other thing. The minister may know that the Mackenzie river is open to navigation about the middle of May or earlier from Great Slave lake almost to the mouth of the river. That may seem incredible, but it is so. But Great Slave lake itself is not open until July. The summer I went down there by boat


Lionel Chevrier: It is open on the 10th of May, I am told.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The river, but not the lake.


Lionel Chevrier: Open on the 10th of May at Waterways.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is roughly 400 miles south of Great Slave lake. Great Slave lake is frozen solid almost up to the 1st of July, and the Hudson Bay company boats when they reach Great Slave lake have to wait until the lake ice has moved out. If my hon. friend will read the life of Sir Alexander Mackenzie and other great explorers he will recall that when they arrived at Great Slave lake they were compelled to wait quite a long time for a channel to open up to the river itself. There is a way to overcome that. I doubt if human beings can overcome the freezing of Great Slave lake or have it opened up earlier, but certainly it does retard navigation on the river to have the lake frozen solid until the summer. But last winter and for several winters before a tractor train has gone out from Peace river via Grimshaw up to Notikewin. Up to that point there is a good road, and from there north a tractor
road. The Alberta government and the federal government, I am' glad to say, are now going to make a good road from Notikewin via Alexandra falls, which is a very beautiful falls on the Hay river, a fall of 106 feet, where by and by a lot of power will be developed. Then the road will branch off, with one road going up from the mouth of the Hay river and across the lake to Yellowknife. The village is called Hay River too. I stopped at Hay River to see all I could. Northwest from Alexandria Falls the other branch goes to Mills Lake, which is just a post, forty miles west of Fort Providence, west of the lake called Mills lake. When I refer to Mills Lake I am referring to the post, not to the lake.
At Mills Lake there is a tractor winter road across the Mackenzie river, and after another 400 miles or thereabouts you arrive at Norman Wells. Norman Wells to my mind must be supported. It is a fine centre. There is a lot of business there. I was pleased to see there all kinds of stuff that I knew SO' well that had been made down here in the east. That is what I am interested in, the market potentialities, because it means more employment down east, more employment in the minister's own fine city of Cornwall, more employment in the fine city of Peterborough represented so ably by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser), and more employment in Mr. Deputy Speaker's own fine manufacturing city of Brantford. I could go on and name many other fine cities, including Ottawa too, and round about, all of which would benefit by development of that far north country. We are shipping annually 25,000 tons of freight down that river even at the present high freight rate, and you can readily picture 200,000 tons of freight going down that river if we had a reasonable freight rate. What would that mean to employment in old Ontario and Quebec, yes, and in Winnipeg too, where they have a lot of fine plants? It would mean more business of every description all over the country.
I hope that the minister's bill will result in opening up that country through the cutting down of freight rates, which are altogether too high to-day, and in the development of business. That is the only objective I have in mind, and the minister will receive my hearty support for any programme that he can outline which will do these two things-increase the speed of traffic up and down the river and cut down the freight rate on the river, and see to it that the people up in that country who need oil for fuel for heating hospitals, schools and their homes are not charged at the rate of $30 a ton.

Transport Act

Just four hundred miles down the river is Norman Wells. At that point there are, I believe, some fifty wells which flow oil. They opened the Canol pipeline to let it flow, and have had success in producing up to three thousand barrels of oil per day; in fact, on one occasion nearly eight thousand barrels were produced in a day. The oil is there, and the Imperial Oil sell it at a low rate. They could charge a lot more if they wanted to, but to their credit the rate they charge is very reasonable.
Do not retard the country bv allowing transport companies to charge exorbitant rates, and then the minister will make a name for himself, and he will become a lover of the north country, as I am. I can hardly leave it when I go there; in fact it is a tourist's paradise; there is nothing like it in the world. I dreamed two months after I left Aklavik of the Mackenzie delta, the most weird and amazing spectacle I have ever seen, worth anyone's visit. Between freight and tourist traffic this country will reap a rich harvest and do a great deal for the world and for Canada.
Mr. HARRY R. JACKMAN (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is apparently simple enough-merely to place under the Department of Transport the fixing of rates on the Mackenzie river area; but I fail to see how it really strikes at the root of the matter.
We have had an interesting description of the area by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), from which I think we may realize that this area is a somewhat peculiar one as far as shipping concerned. I should be glad if the minister at some time during the discussion would say whether or not there are any similar areas under the jurisdiction, of the board of transport commissioners at the present time. For instance, the freeze-up comes early, and there is somewhat less than six months of open water for these shipping facilities to use. Where else in Canada are there similar transportation difficulties where the rates are fixed by the board of transport commissioners?
If the minister should think I am critical of this bill, it is not that I am, but that I feel we should have certain information and find out exactly whether the objective which he seeks, and which is an excellent one, is to be achieved by the passing of such a measure as this.
In the minister's introductory remarks he mentioned that of the three shipping companies plying this route, one was owned by the dominion government through the acquisi-

tion of the Eldorado Mining company. When the auditor general investigated the profit and loss statement of that shipping company he decided that the rate of $20 per ton was not enough for bunker fuel oil, and the rate was therefore raised by a government department to no less than $30. Apparently there was a certain amount of complaint from shippers, and it would seem that the solution is merely to refer this whole matter to the board of transport commissioners, a government body, the government already having decided that a subsidy is not in order. And may I say that, whereas the northbound traffic is of a nature which seemingly can stand the tariff, the southbound traffic, which consists entirely of pitchblende and fuel oil, is of such a nature- at least, with reference to pitchblende, a product massive in nature and heavy in weight-that it cannot bear a very heavy tariff. Therefore fuel oil, the one item which can bear such a tariff, is obviously charged a rate which will help to balance accounts; and as I have already said, a government-owned shipping company could not get along with a S20 rate and had to raise it to $30.
I am wondering where in this present bill is a solution. What is the principle upon which rates will be set? Where is the magic which the board of transport commissioners can exercise which cannot be exercised if matters are left to themselves? If the returns at the present time are large-and as I have already pointed out, the auditor general has said that they have been in the red rather than in the black-new capital will be attracted to shipping on this route and new ships will thereby be provided; competition will therefore adjust the rate to that which is fair. I do not see why the government should assume to adjust these difficulties when they can be adjusted by the normal process of open competition, particularly at the present time, when capital is going begging and looking for places where it can get, not necessarily a high return, but any kind of fair return. If there is a genuine economic complaint on the part of some of the shippers, may I point out that those shippers, most of them being mining companies, -and some of them quite prosperous, are not impecunious. They can provide their own shipping, just as the Eldorado Mining company did, and it could be made a public vehicle and therefore forced to take any traffic which is offered. As I have said, when there is a sufficiency of ships, if there is an inordinate profit the rate will come down through the working of competition.
As I see it, this bill merely passes the buck; and unless the minister will explain to the house what principle is better than free com-

Transport Act
petition, I cannot see that the adoption of the bill will serve any useful purpose. As I see it, either the rates must be maintained at a level found necessary by the auditor general or by the private owners, or they must be subsidized. If the former, what useful function can the board of transport commissioners perform? If the latter, the Department of Transport will only have to refer the matter of the subsidy to this house for an appropriation. Therefore I would ask the minister just what solution is to be provided by passing the matter over to another government department rather than leaving it to the free play of the ordinary business enterprise of the country.


Lionel Chevrier: Last night the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) asked a number of questions in connection with the purport of this bill, and I should like to deal with these for a moment before coming to the remarks made by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) and the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman).
The hon. member for Broadview asked among other things over what water-borne traffic the board of transport commissioners have jurisdiction. The answer to that can be found in section 12 of the Transport Act, which this bill seeks to amend. Roughly speaking, it can be said that the board of transport commissioners have jurisdiction' over all water carriers on the great lakes and on the river St. Lawrence as far east as the western tip of the island of Orleans.
The hon. gentleman asked what policy the government had with reference to control over international and interprovincial traffic. That, as the hon. gentleman knows, is a moot question. Perhaps the best answer is to say that in 1937 the then Minister of Transport 'introduced in the senate a bill to amend the Transport Act, in which there was a section that had to do with the, control of interprovincial and international traffic so far as buses and motor trucks were concerned. The opposition to that section of the bill was such that in the final analysis the bill was defeated, so that the following year, when chapter 53, an act to establish the board of transport commissioners, was brought before the house, the section concerning control over interprovincial and international traffic was simply withdrawn from the bill.
Hon. members will know that the provinces maintain that they have jurisdiction not only over provincial motor traffic and vehicular traffic but also interprovincially. So that at this time to think of including in this bill con-47696- 136i
sideration of that subject matter without agreement with the provinces, would not I think be opportune.
The hon. gentleman asked what was being done by the board of transport commissioners during the war. The board have been continuing their sittings during the war just as they have done in peace. It is their business to inquire into and hear complaints and appeals under the railway act. This they have been doing and will continue to do. Much of their work however has been curtailed and restricted because of orders of the wartime prices and trade board. I can think at the moment of th question which the hon. member for Davenport raised when he complained vehemently-I do not blame him for that- about the freight rates charged from Edmonton to Waterways. Order No. 92 of wartime prices and trade board, which is a part of the general war policy, regulated the prices and rates charged for both goods and services, and regulated also freight rates; and it froze freight rates, in so far as that area and others are concerned, at the level at which they were in 1941.
While it may be that the work of the board has been curtailed by some war measures, it has also been extended because of the cooperation which the board of transport commissioners lend to the work of the transport controller, for instance, and it has among other things regulated and supervised the carriage of dangerous munitions of war and explosives.
The member for Davenport dealt at length with the purport of the bill, and I wish to thank him for the interesting remarks which he made, not only with reference to the bill itself, but on the subject of traffic in the whole northwest country, which he knows so well. I think the house will be grateful to him for the suggestions he has made. Those suggestions were aimed chiefly at speeding up the traffic in that great country which has so much potential mineral and other wealth.
The hon. member suggested several methods which, I must admit, this bill would not have the authority to implement. But I would say to him that, as he anticipated, I am greatly interested, and I am sure the Department of Transport is exceedingly interested in that whole north country. The Department of Public Works, as the hon. gentleman knows, has jurisdiction over the deepening of the channel. Already it has spent some small sums in deepening the channel in that area. The Department of Transport has jurisdiction over aids to navigation, but it has not spent large amounts of money, perhaps not as much as it should, possibly because perhaps of the distance of the Mackenzie river district.
Transport Act

Most of the work in connection with aids to navigation by the department has been performed through an agent of the Department of Mines and Resources in that area.
Freight rates, as I intimated! in my statement on the second reading, have been complained of as being too high. The member for Rosedale asks whether this is simply a process of passing the buck. The hon. member for Davenport has suggested some methods by which, over and above this, the problem can be met. I am prepared and willing to give consideration to these methods, but I ask the member for Rosedale, what other method is there under the circumstances, when a person complains about a high rate or the excessiveness of a rate, than to refer the whole matter to the body that has jurisdiction over such nates in Canada? And that body is the board of transport commissioners. It has the staff, engineers and men who over a period of years have become conversant with that work, know it, and have been doing it. It is not at all a question of passing the buck, but rather a question of bringing to the attention of the board the existence of an anomalous situation in that area.
The method which the board follows is this. Having been appraised of the situation it asks whether these carriers are prepared to file a tariff rate, after of course the act comes into force. I mean by that, that in the first instance these carriers must be licensed, and after they have obtained their licence to carry goods and passengers they file with the board a standard tariff of their tolls and charges for passengers and goods, be it package freight or goods in bulk. That tariff is posted in the offices of all the carriers in that area so that the public know in advance what the charges are, and should the charges be exorbitant or too high then the board has machinery to hear complaints. Having heard the complaints it may alter and reduce rates as it sees fit in accordance with the evidence which it hears. That has been the procedure of the board, and I think on the whole it has worked out fairly well.
All this bill seeks to do-while I should like to see it do more, as to the development of the resources of that great country and assistance to those who live there-in those circumstances, is to amend the Transport Act so as to bring water carriers in this whole northern area, the Mackenzie river district, within the jurisdiction of the board of transport, commissioners in order that they may regulate the carriers, their tariffs and their tolls. I think it is a good bill and I commend it to the house.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Will the minister permit a question? Will he say whether or not the board of transport commissioners has jurisdiction over any other pioneer route?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: That question should
be asked in committee.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I asked the question before and the minister did not answer it; that is why I repeat it.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. The minister has spoken and has closed the debate. Shall the motion carry?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Mackenzie river.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: May I ask the minister whether or not the board of transport commissioners has jurisdiction at the present time over any other pioneer route where ice is a factor?


Lionel Chevrier: No. I should perhaps qualify that by saying, none other than the great lakes, and of course that is not a pioneer route such as I mentioned a moment ago.
Mr. MacNI'COL: Why does the minister not bring the Yukon river under the same control with a view not to raising rates but to lowering them? The great Yukon country is served by the Yukon river, a very great river, navigable all the way from Whitehorse to Dawson, a distance of about six hundred miles. Perhaps the rates on that river are too high. Why should it not be brought under the board? If I thought the rates were to be increased I would say, "never". If they could be lowered I would say, "yes".


Lionel Chevrier: I must say that the government has received no complaints in connection with the Yukon river, and as minister I have received no representations. Before including the Yukon I would certainly want to give it some thought.


Grote Stirling: We are discussing section 1. If the board of transport commissioners substantiates the $30 rate referred to by the minister, will the government then consider a subsidy?


Lionel Chevrier: That is a question I cannot answer at the moment. I am sure my hon. friend will appreciate the position of the Minister of Transport with reference to subsidies. It is not the Minister of Transport who grants subsidies. I should think that would be a matter of government policy, and I certainly should not like to make a statement with reference to that now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Transport Act
On section. 2-Ship.
Mr. GREEN:: Section 2 covers the definition of a ship. Hon. members will have noted that in the Mackenzie river district that word includes a scow, and in other parts of Canada it includes a dredge. The board of transport commissioners have extensive powers over shipping. In some of the cities in Canada there is considerable difficulty with traffic by reason of the opening of bridges. In my home city of Vancouver we have what is known as False creek, which is an inlet extending into the heart of the city. There is very little shipping on that inlet. I have no wish to interfere with what actual shipping there is, that is, shipping in the ordinary sense, but every so often scows with derricks on them are brought into that inlet. While there is one high level bridge, there are three bridges that are not high level; they have tc be opened, and it sometimes causes the utmost confusion. Earlier this month a scow with a derrick on it came in about office closing time; one bridge was open for half an hour, and traffic was not normal again for three hours. It was estimated that 50,000 people had to go over those three bridges in street cars.
I should like the minister to indicate, what possibility there is of having a situation like that rectified. In Vancouver we depend to a large extent on our harbour. Our shipping is of the utmost importance to us. I do not want to do anything that would be detrimental to the shipping, but it does seem that a line should be drawn somewhere so that the whole city transportation system will not be thrown out of gear by a derrick coming through those three bridges. I believe that the board1 of transport commissioners have wide enough powers to enable them to deal with such derricks. If they have not that power, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act power is given to the governor in council to make regulations dealing with the opening and closing of bridges.


Lionel Chevrier: I am grateful to my hon. friend for bringing up this matter, because recently I had it brought rather forcibly to my attention. It really does not come under the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners itself.


Howard Charles Green: One of the bridges is a railway bridge, and under the Railway Act the opening and closing of railway bridges is directly under the board of transport commissioners.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. I was not aware that one of the bridges was a railway bridge.
If it is, then it does come under the board. But with reference to the other two, they would come under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Section 32 of that act, paragraph (c), says in effect that the governor in council may make regulations to govern the opening or closing of any swing bridge or drawbridge over any navigable water. Under and by virtue of that section a former minister of transport issued regulations covering traffic under those circumstances. Those regulations were made pursuant to P.C. 2060 of October 12, 1923. In 1944 the city of Vancouver made representations to the Minister of Transport complaining about the very thing to which my hon. friend has referred. The minister then amended this order in council so as to give to him jurisdiction to state the times at which the bridges might or might not of necessity be closed. Rather than do that arbitrarily the minister thought the best thing to do in the circumstances was to submit it to a committee of the city of Vancouver, the national harbours board and the tugboat owners' association-I think that is the name of it-and it was agreed by them-


Howard Charles Green: Did the minister say the city council also?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; I think I said the city of Vancouver.


Howard Charles Green: The minister meant the city council?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. An agreement was arrived at between the parties, which was later submitted to the minister, that bridges should not be opened between seven and nine-thirty o'clock in the morning and three and five-thirty o'clock in the afternoon. That was concurred in by the department, through the national harbours board, and instructions were given to the tug boat owners' association to abide by the agreement and see to it that they did not have their tugs going through at those hours. If my hon. friend will look at the report which appeared in the Vancouver newspaper he will note that the traffc tie-up on November 2 began after 5.30. I think at 5.37.


Howard Charles Green: That is correct.


Lionel Chevrier: So if it is a fact that the bridges are not being kept closed long enough to prevent tie-ups, certainly we would be prepared to sit in again and see if the agreement could not be amended. In fairness to the tug boat owners' association I should say that they give a plausible explanation for the tie-up. For instance, they say that the particular tug in question, which was the Goblin, was dispatched to pick up a
Transport Act

special scow for movement upcoast, and it met with an unexpected delay. In other words the special scow was not ready to be towed,, through no fault of the tug boat owners' association, and it arrived at about the time the bridge normally would have closed. If it had not gone through it would have been caught by the tide, so it simply kept on going and that was the cause of the delay. This letter which I have before me gives an excellent explanation of the delay and goes on to say that tie-ups such as these occur very rarely. However, I repeat that if the agreement which was arrived at by all parties, I am sure in good faith, does not meet the situation, we shall be glad to review it.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister have an investigation made into this occurrence?


Lionel Chevrier: The investigation is pretty well covered in the correspondence I have here, and it was conducted in part by the national harbours board at the request of the then minister. This correspondence gives a fairly good explanation of what brought about this particular tie-up, and I doubt whether any good purpose would be served by having another investigation.


Howard Charles Green: Has the department been in touch with the city council about this tie-up?
Mr.. CHEVRIER : No, we have not.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Transport of goods in bulk.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I am just wondering
about any representations which may be made to the board on behalf of the business men, miners and so on in that far country. The transport companies will have no difficulty in making their recommendations; their representatives will have free passes and so forth, to enable them to travel back and forth on the railways. But the merchants, -miners and other people up in that country would have great difficulty and be put to great expense in- appearing before the board. I should like to ask if anyone else, for instance myself, would be permitted to appear before the board-because I would try to persuade them that if traffic is assisted the rates should go down instead of up. It is incredible, when you think of it, that a boat arriving at Aklavik should have no dock to tie up to; they just come up alongside the river bank and thro.w out a gang plank, and that situation exists all the way north from Fort Smith. I do not believe the business people of that country should be penalized by higher freight rates because of the lack of appliances to assist the movement of freight. When I arrived at Fort Smith I was met by a delegation who

asked me to use my influence to persuade the government to purchase the cranes sent there by the United States government during the war to transfer heavy material from trucks to boats. I made what representations I could to those with whom I came in contact, but surely if such appliances are made available the freight rates should go down instead of up. I would not for one moment permit the carrying companies to get away with the assumption that the rates must go up.
The hon. member for Rosedale spoke about freight rates. I would take the stand the rates must go down and not uip. If the rates go up it will retard the development of the country; if they go down it will speed up that development, and that should be our objective.


Lionel Chevrier: The hearings of the
board are very informal. If there are any in the north country or anywhere else who desire to make representations, they may do so in writing, by letter, by affidavit or otherwise; they need not come in person, and the board will take cognizance of such representations. As far as my hon. friend is concerned, he could appear; anyone may appear before the board and give evidence or make representations. They may do so either in person or in writing. I am sure the board would welcome the appearance of my hon. friend on behalf of any interests in the northwest country.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: May I ask the minister
why the regulations do not apply to bulk goods on other waterways than the Mackenzie? That exception is made in several sections, where you say-"shall not apply to bulk goods on waters other than the Mackenzie river." That is so in section 3, for instance. Why is that exception put in?


Lionel Chevrier: For the reason that section 12 of the original act says that the provisions of this part, namely the part that has to do with transport by water, the licensing of ships to carry passengers and goods, shall not apply to the transport -of goods in bulk. In other words water carriers on the great lakes, for instance, are subject to the jurisdiction of the board only as far as package freight is concerned. In the Mackenzie area the purport of the amendment is to make the jurisdiction of the -board applicable to both package and bulk freight.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Then has the Department of Transport no jurisdiction over bulk shipments on the great lakes?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.

Transport Act
On section 5-Transport of goods in bulk.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to say just one last word, Mr. Chairman. I want to place before the minister the fact that the government itself is connected with the production of oil at Fort McMurray. Not much is being produced, but that is neither here nor there; I hope a great deal will be produced at the Abasand plant. If they become shippers of oil, as formerly they were shippers of oil from Fort McMurray and Waterways to Yellowknife, any oil they ship north would have to be transhipped at Fort Fitzgerald, and taken across the portage to Fort Smith. So if freight rates are increased it would be a handicap to the government company at Fort McMurray or any other company operating the plant at Abasand. It would retard their shipments of oil north. Oil coming up the river from Norman Wells would not be up against the portage; they would be able to come up the river right into Great Slave lake and then go right on to Yellowknife, whereas oil going down the river from Fort McMurray and Waterways would have to be portaged at Fort Fitzgerald. As I see it, every effort must be made to prevent any increase in the rates. Rather the incentive should be to reduce the rates.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Would the minister say whether the rates on the great lakes are fixed each year and, if so, under what authority?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry I cannot give the hon. gentleman that information.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: May I say I am surprised that the minister should ask for special powers having to do with the regulation of the Mackenzie river area which are not applicable to shipments in bulk on the great lakes. May I say to my colleague, the hon. member for Davenport, thait I do not take second place to him in the wish that this northern country may be developed. However, I believe that development is more likely to come about if the board of transport commissioners are not given the power to fix rates. It may be that they will allow a return of so much per cent on the capital invested or a little higher rate, whatever it may be, but I believe the effective development of this great northern country could be better left to the working of free enterprise.	[DOT]
If there is a shortage of ships now and if the tariff, whether it be a tariff collected only from the shipper or a subsidized tariff paid in part by the government, is profitable, there will be sufficient ships of one sort or another to carry all the traffic that is offered and in that way develop the country. If the return
happens to be large for a few years or even for a year it will soon be found that in place of three shipping companies there will be half a dozen shipping companies. The ordinary course of competition will mean that the rates will be reduced.
The only hesitation I have in regard to putting this area of navigation under the Department of Transport is that it is a pioneer area and subject to certain hazards, such as the early freezing factor, and is therefore a field which does not lend itself, in the early stages, to regulation. When it is developed and one knows what operating conditions and costs will be, I dare say it could then come under the Department of Transport for the fixing of rates, as do other shipping routes. However, I would point out again to the committee that the Department of Transport do not seek to exercise jurisdiction over bulk shipments elsewhere in Canada; they only want it in this particular place.
If the desire of the hon. member for Davenport and of the whole committee is to be achieved, I think it would be better to leave this matter to the open forces of competition which would provide the necessary services. That competition in turn will be a most effective regulator of rates, whereas if you put it under the Department of Transport you will have the dead hand of regulation upon it and I believe that will have the effect of stifling the development of the north country.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not want the hon. member for Rosedale to think I am exercising any priority in advocating fair play for the north country. The hon. member for Rose-dale can rise just as often as he likes and advocate as much as he likes the development of the north country. However, I must tell him frankly that I am not at the moment in favour of allowing the north country to be under the handicap the minister has pointed out. This rate has been raised from $20 to $30 a ton. I am in favour of having this matter submitted to the board of transport commissioners so that the rate can be reduced. If the board of transport commissioners have not control over this matter and these people can raise the rates whenever they feel like it, no one can tell whether they will not raise the rates to $40 or $50 a ton the next time. I welcome the support of my hon. friend but I want" to tell him again that I exercise no priority; he can rise as often as he likes and when he likes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
City oj Ottawa Agreement


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to authorize the Minister of Public Works on behalf of His Majesty, to enter into an agreement to pay to the Corporation of the City of Ottawa the sum of $300,000 annually for a period of five years from the first day of July, 1944, and for other purposes stated in the agreement.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this resolution precedes a bill which will be based on the recommendations of a special committee of the House of Commons and the Senate which was set up in 1944. For about ten years members of the house had been requesting that a committee be set up to hear representations which would be made by the city of Ottawa for an increase in the grant, which at that time was $100,000 a year. In 1942 the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) made that suggestion in the house, and also the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith), the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher) and, I believe, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). After those representations had been made a committee was set up in May, 1944. The reference to the committee read as follows:
To review the special problems arising out of the location of the seat of government in the city of Ottawa and to report on the relations between the federal government and the municipal authorities of the said city and their relative responsibilities in respect to such problems, with power to inquire into the matter ana things therein referred to.
That committee met on many occasions. They heard evidence given by His Worship the Mayor of the city of Ottawa, by members of the board of control, by aldermen, by officials of the city, by members of the Ottawa board of trade, by members of the federal district commission and by the secretary of the Department of Public Works. After evidence had been brought before the committee, it was moved toward the end of the sittings, by the hon. member for Ottawa West, seconded1 by the hon. member for Carleton, that a grant of $500,000 be made to the city of Ottawa. That amendment did not carry, but the committee did adopt unanimously the suggestion that the grant be raised from $100,000 to $300,000 for civic services rendered to the government.
The bill will be based on that recommendation, which was only one of the recommendations made by that committee. The other

recommendations had1 to do with the federal district commission, with the extending of the territory to come under their jurisdiction and other matters. I believe that this resolution should be dealt with only as it pertains to the relations between the government and the city of Ottawa.
The last agreement with the city of Ottawa was dated March, 1920. In that agreement the government made a grant of $75,000 to the city for water services, water used for sprinkling streets and parkways belonging to the federal district commission or to the government, for fire protection, and1 probably for police protection. That grant was to be made for five years. In 1924, at the expiration of that agreement, negotiations were made to have the grant- increased but no agreement was reached at that time. In 1925 the1 amount was increased to $100,000, and the agreement made for five years. Then in- 1930 an agreement was made for one year only, and since then up to 1944 a bill has been introduced every year renewing the- agreement of 1920. Since 1920 conditions have changed quite a bit in the city of Ottawa through the purchase of property by the federal government, and the services rendered1 by the city have accordingly increased. The government believes that for this grant of $300,000 we receive benefits through the services rendered.
These agreements which have been passed by the house for a good many years are a consequence of section 125 of the British North America Act, which provides that lands and property belonging to the federal or provincial governments are not liable to taxation. At the time of confederation no request was made for any grant, but in 1877 the government signed a contract with the city of Ottawa for the use of the city's water and this amount has been modified or increased as the years have gone by. We pay for the water that is used in the public buildings; that is contained in one section of the agreement, as we shall see when we come to study the bill.
The bill has only one clause. It differs very little from the agreement of 1930 except as to the amount of the grant. There have been a few amendments made for clarification and for certain inducements, but the other provisions are very similar to those contained in previous agreements.
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call attention to what the minister said last session regarding this grant to the city of Ottawa. I am not opposing the vote at all because considering what the city of Ottawa has done I think $300,000 is not too much to grant annually

City of Ottawa Agreement
for a period of five years. But I do say this, that the principle of this vote was first adopted in 1917, following a report which I had prepared for the. city of Toronto long before this agreement ever came into being. What was that report? It produced a collection of data from all over the world as to what federal governments were doing for capital cities in the way of a subvention and bonuses or subsidies. It showed the account as between the city of Toronto and the federal government and between other cities in Canada and the federal government, and, second, it showed the account as between the largest cities of the province and the provincial government. As a result of that report Mr. Fisher, who was then mayor of Ottawa, a few years later, interviewed the government and an agreement was reached to make a grant to the city of Ottawa as a subvention given in exchange for municipal services of all kinds. It was made only locally for Ottawa instead of for all Canada.
I am not opposing this appropriation at all. Far from it. But I do say that various ministers, when this legislation has been up in other years, have indicated that some action might also be taken by the federal government with regard to other cities, with a view to paying the municipalities right across the country for similar municipal services rendered. In Toronto several millions of dollars worth of government property are exempt from taxation. For years in Toronto the government would not build a sidewalk or pay for a roadway built in front of their property. The principle of this appropriation is payment for municipal services rendered. The services rendered by the municipality to the federal government include not only water service but police and fire protection and other municipal services, and in Toronto the water services and other utilities services are supplied to the government at cost. Then there is also the building of roads, sewers and all that kind of thing. In 1905 the government of Sir James Whitney in Ontario first paid for the local improvements at the normal school there that were made on Church and Gerrard streets. They were the first government in the dominion to pay the municipalities for these improvements and they made it provincial wide. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) last year and the year before indicated-his words will be found in Hansard -that inquiry would be made and a survey made into the question of paying other cities and towns, urban and suburban and rural communities, for exactly the same kind of municipal services rendered to the government. When the war was on, look at the cost of
maintaining various public services! Take the municipal police and fire services, for example, and many other services. The onus has been placed on the municipality for enforcing federal law, and in that way the local authorities have been placed under a burden for years. The same thing runs through every federal department. Even the life-saving stations of Toronto supply services all over the lakes of Ontario and all their equipment is provided and maintained by the city.
Something should also be done about the intolerable conditions that prevail at the Ottawa union station. Everybody knows of the traffic congestion there and how the trains are held up. Somebody is going to be killed down at the station if nothing is done about it. Only the fine work of railway employees prevents it. Everybody has noticed the lack of protection there for the travelling public. The trains also come into the station by a roundabout way; many of them get in late, or early in the morning, and all that kind of thing.
Has the minister made any inquiry into the question of paying a subvention to other municipalities for the very same municipal services? Subvention was the word used in 1917 in the report which I have already mentioned, following which Mayor Fisher of Ottawa a few years later interviewed the federal government and secured a grant for the city of Ottawa. I was president of the union of municipalities at the time, and I know that the city of Ottawa, as a result of the report I mentioned, was the first city to have this principle adopted. In Australia, Sydney got $2,500,000 for maintaining the police force, and in the United States many municipalities on lake Erie to the head of the lakes, which maintain stations and aids to shipping receive a federal grant, as does the city of Detroit. We have nothing like that in Canada. Yet a large sum of money is collected by the government from the municipalities. Surely the government should read the handwriting on the wall and give some consideration to paying Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Hamilton, London, Saint John, Halifax, Quebec, Montreal and many other cities and towns in Ontario and across the country for similar municipal services rendered. Nobody is objecting to Ottawa being the capital city, but one thing I do object to is this. We have capable Canadian engineers, graduates of McGill, Laval, Western, university of British Columbia, Dalhousie university and others, who have helped to build the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian National Railways and the Chippawa power canal, and who are quite
City oj Ottawa Agreement

capable of helping to build up this country in other ways. I am not objecting to anybody being brought from the old land or France to give advice, but they should be brought here to act in an advisory capacity only. We have many Canadian graduates who can tell them a lot more than some of those who have been brought here know. The United States acquired hundreds of our Canadian citizens as engineers in great works.
I urge upon the minister that he should do something about the federal district improvement commission. Last winter conditions were intolerable right in front of this parliament building and in these grounds. Something should be done to regulate the traffic around these buildings. In winter the streets on the hill here are impassable. Certainly at times in these grounds they are no credit to Canada, as I have said before.
The city of Ottawa is a very fine city, and Ottawa people are fine people in many ways. Still I maintain that the principle of this appropriation should be extended to include other cities and towns across Canada where similar services are performed for the government. For that reason, while I support this increase, on grounds of equality of treatment I urge that along these lines something be done for other cities.
I would also bring to the minister's attention the monuments around these buildings. Some stand in the front, some are in the back, and others are in the backyard by the coal bin of a great Irish statesman. I would ask that the attention of the federal district improvement commission be drawn to some of the points I have raised, and finally I urge that subventions be granted to other municipalities which are also supplying similar services at the expense of the local taxpayer, which imposes the burden on real estate in this country.


Mr. G. RUSSELL BOUCHER (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take issue with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), who has urged that the government consider subventions for other cities, but I would point out that this appropriation of $300,000 should not be considered a grant in any shape or form. It is actually an estimated compensation for services rendered. It is not a substitute for taxation.
Might I point out some of the facts which were revealed before the committee, whose report no doubt many hon. members have read. If the dominion government were to pay taxes on its property in Ottawa at the rate of assessments and of taxation city residents have to pay, calculating the taxation on the public school rate, not the separate school

rate, it would amount to $2,117,727.70 a year. That may indicate that the day is coming in Canada when the British North America Act should be amended so that the government, for any government-owned property, should compensate the municipalities in some way in lieu of taxation or render their property subject to taxation. Might I also point out that the annual assessment value of government-owned property in Ottawa in 1920, when the grant was originally set at $75,000, was $30 million. The assessed value of government-owned property in 1943, according to the best calculations, amounted to over $654 million. Those facts are cited only by way of some indication of the services which the municipality must render to the dominion government and its various enterprises.
I do not wish to delay the house in discussing this matter, because I believe a joint committee of both houses went into it in some respects thoroughly and were unanimous in their opinion that at least $300,000 should be granted. I should, however, like to point out that the government should implement this recommendation on a basis of five years rather than on that of an annual grant. That is only fair to the municipality, and should be approved by this house. I also wish to point out that it is paid1 direct to the city of Ottawa for services rendered by this city and paid for by its taxpayers, for government services of many kinds within the city, and that the position of the federal district is not involved.
I believe the government could very well afford to bring in the complete report of this committee and have it discussed in the house so far as the setting up of a federal area or a fedbral district is concerned. It would be very much to the advantage of Canada and of all hon. members if a discussion were had on the committee's report and as to the prospects of establishing a national capital area here. But I do not think these matters should enter into the present debate. The resolution merely proposes to give the city of Ottawa compensation for services rendered, and the wording of the motion indicates that it is so regarded' by the government.


Mr. W. C. MACDONALD (Halifax):: I have not risen to oppose this measure. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) mentioned a few minutes ago the case of Halifax. The situation there is in many ways unique. We have there tax exemptions to the extent of fifty per cent of the real property of the city. Of that fifty per cent, seventy iper cent is federally owned property. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) said in the house a few days ago that under the provisions of the British North America Act, section 125, no tax

City oj Ottawa Agreement
can. be levied on the property of Canada by either the dominion or a province. However, in 1867 when the act was passed, conditions in this country were vastly different from what they are now. At that time the total cost of municipal services was infinitesimal compared with what it is to-day.
There is another consideration which distinguishes the case of Halifax from that of the greater number of cities in the dominion. We have the Canadian National railway terminals on the Atlantic in Halifax, and the railways own a great deal of property in the city. Purely and solely by reason of the fact that the railway property there which is now owned by Canadian National Railways was formerly the property of the Intercolonial Railway company, it is tax exempt so far as Halifax is concerned. Things would be entirely different had it not been that it was the Intercolonial railway which Canadian National Railways absorbed. Had our railway property in Halifax been owned by the Grand Trunk instead of the Canadian Northern, the amount of tax exemption would have been very much less.
That is the situation in Halifax to-day. As hon. members know, the burden which was placed on that city in recent years, and which I am not going into this afternoon, has been enormous. I merely want to say this, that instead of opposing this motion I support it, and I think any agreement based on it and approved by this house may furnish a useful precedent for cities and municipalities that can make a strong case such as Ottawa has made and as Halifax can make.
I have one suggestion to offer, and it is this. Within a few weeks the dominion-provincial conference will meet in Ottawa to go into a number of matters affecting the relations between the provinces and the dominion. One matter which, I suggest, could very well be considered at that conference is this question of the right of municipalities to tax the property of the crown. The position of cities and municipalities throughout the dominion should not be prejudiced for all time merely by reason of the fact that in 1867 our constitution provided that property of Canada was not taxable.


Mr. W. G. CASE (Grey North):: I rise to support the motion. I fully appreciate the disabilities suffered by municipalities in which the government have large and substantial holdings. When I had the privilege of serving on the confederation of mayors this subject became quite an old chestnut. One of the principal complainants was the city of Niagara Falls, where Ontario hydro has a huge installation. I agree that this grant is indeed due
to the city of Ottawa, but the observation I particularly wish to make is that I think there should be some practical yardstick or scientific formula applied1 in such matters. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher) has made reference to the amount of taxes which would have been received by the city of Ottawa had the government been subject to the same rate of taxation in relation to their assessed properties as are private individuals. One can appreciate that this proposed payment is, as it were, a mere contribution. The time is not far distant when we should determine by some formula the amount or percentage of amounts that the dominion and provincial governments should pay, either in taxation or in substitution for the taxes they would otherwise be expected to pay. I do not think it should be a matter of a grant which is meant in a sense to compensate for services rendered by the city of Ottawa. Surely this great country with its resources can afford to pay its way. While accepting the resolution, I suggest that in our future approach to the matter we should find some method of determining the .amount of taxes which dominion property should return to the municipality for the services which are rendered by the municipality, without resorting to what is more or less a guess of $300,000 in the light of the figures presented by the hon. member for Carleton. I hope that in the not too distant future we shall determine that it will not be $300,000 but a reasonable amount in relation to what we pay for services that are rendered by the capital city to the nation as a whole.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: As a member of the committee, I have one word to say. I would ask the minister to explain in committee how far the government has gone in implementing the other recommendations. While I realize that from the Ottawa council's point of view $300,000' is a great increase over the $100,000 previously granted, there are other recommendations in which as a member of the committee I am greatly interested. We are coming now into the period of snow. There is a recommendation with regard to the clearing of snow from the streets of Ottawa and the collection of ashes and garbage. The suggestion from the committee was that this be done on a cooperative basis. Regarding the street transportation system, has anything been done there? And as regards the city as a national capital, it has been recommended that other sections of Canada be given representation on the commission. I think it is due the house, especially after the time taken up by the committee last year, that a statement be made by the
City of Ottawa Agreement

minister with reference to these various recommendations. When may we expect the implementing of them?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) referred to the federal district commission, but that is a matter which does not come within this resolution. The federal district commission comes under another department, and when the estimates for the federal district commission come before the house for consideration that will be the proper time to discuss the other recommendations of the committee that sat in 1944. This bill has special purposes which are embodied in the agreement, and one provision is the increasing of the payment for services rendered by the city from $100,000 to $300,000. That amount was arrived at after evidence had been heard in the committee. We thought there would be more satisfaction to the public if witnesses appeared and presented the city's case to both houses. In our opinion that was preferable to having an arbitrary figure decided upon by the government. We are adopting this unanimous recommendation from that committee.
As regards presenting the report of that committee for discussion, I do not believe, from my past experience in the house, that concurrence can be asked1 for in a succeeding session or a succeeding parliament. I am no expert in these matters of procedure but I do not believe that can be done. As I have said, however, when the estimates for the federal district commission come up the recommendations can be discussed.
There are only four recommendations. One has to do with the extension of the territory surrounding the capital, and the extension of the powers and the number of commissioners on the federal district commission, There is also the recommendation regarding the power to set up committees to negotiate with municipalities concerning future works that may be carried out. One recommendation had to do with the displacing of the union station, and another recommendation concerns the cleanliness of the city, the removal of snow from streets and parks, and the collection of ashes, garbage and other refuse. Under this bill, with the little knowledge I have of the situation, I could discuss the report, but when the bill is distributed to members they will see the scope of the agreement, and at that time I can answer questions.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.


Mr. HAZEN:: In my opinion we are not
justified in making fish of one community in the dominion and fowl of another. We have

been told this afternoon that this payment, by which it is proposed to increase from $100,000 to $300,000 the grant to the city of Ottawa is for services rendered by the city to the dominion government. But I would ask, what about the services that have: been rendered by the dominion government to the city of Ottawa? The dominion government has established in the city of Ottawa one of the biggest industries that exist in this country, namely the parliament of Canada; and if the city of Ottawa objects in any way to having that industry continued here, under the terms on which it was established, I can assure the citizens of this city and the members of this house that there are a great many communities in the dominion that would be very glad to take over the industry which the dominion has established. They will give it a free site; they will give it free water; they will give it free police and fire protection, and they will let it set up their plant there without any taxation whatsoever.
If the dominion government is to give compensation to Ottawa in lieu of permitting it to tax dominion properties in this city, then I think they will have to treat other cities in Canada in the same way. As has been said here this afternoon, the British North America Act provides that dominion property shall be free of taxation. If the government is to change that principle it cannot do so for one city alone. The act should be amended and the government should be fair to the other cities in the dominion. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I am opposed to the agreement.


Thomas Langton Church: The city of Toronto has in its tax rate to-day about two and a half or two and three-quarter mills on the dollar which are purely federal. That tax rate is imposed on real estate in our city because the dominion government pays no taxes in that city. This agreement calls for the payment of $300,000 to Ottawa. That will amount to a cash grant of $1,500,000 in five years. That money will be handed to the city of Ottawa for what? As a subvention in exchange for municipal services rendered. But to that must be added the capital expenditures which have been undertaken by the federal district commission and the suburban roads commission. Roads, squares, parks and driveways in this city have been built at federal expense. In every other municipality these things are paid for by the taxpayers of the municipality. This is quite unfair and it is getting everything out of joint. The other municipalities make their complaints to the government year after year, but they

City of Ottawa Agreement
receive nothing. Nevertheless the municipalities have spent money on the very same kind of services. I pointed out the difference in the United States and in Great Britain. In Great Britain they have a regulation through the local government board by which in effect they pay the cost of these very services. The government of this country is not doing so. If the government wants to ruin real estate by such federal burdens imposed on it, all very well. The time has come for a halt until we have more equality of treatment for other places.
The government has erected a large number of buildings in this city. I speak from memory, but I believe that during the war ten million or eleven million dollars worth of buildings have been put up and all that sort of thing. We have to consider the way in which this reacts on the taxpayers of the country. This money comes out of revenue, out of income. This $300,000 which is payable to the city of Ottawa is in the federal tax rate and directly charged to income. I suggest that some consideration should be given to the other municipalities. I join in the complaints of the junior hon. member for Halifax, the hon. member for New Westminster and other hon. members along the same line.


Mr. MAYHEW:: I do not wish to see this opportunity go by without saying a word about one of the municipalities in which I am interested, namely the municipality of Esquimalt. I am not opposing the bill or the granting of $300,000 to Ottawa. I am inclined to agree with the junior hon. member for Halifax that this gives us some reason to hope that the government will look farther than Ottawa at some of the other municipalities which are not being treated quite fairly. Fifty-five per cent of the municipality of Esquimalt is owned by the dominion government. I agree that it is a small municipality. Year after year we have been asking for the small sum of $10,000 a year to maintain the roads and sidewalks that are used almost exclusively for military purposes, but we have not been able to get any recognition whatever. I suppose it is quite all right to say that under the British North America Act municipalities are not allowed to tax crown property, but we have come quite a piece since that time, and I think the whole matter of taxation of crown property should be reconsidered.
Esquimalt is a naval base, and also a base for the military district which gives service to all of Canada, and not to the municipality of Esquimalt alone; therefore I think it should be given some financial assistance to take care
of the upkeep of the roads and the services that go with them. If it is a matter of a post office or a customs office, these are things that give service to the community and the property should not be taxed; but where it is a matter of service to the whole of Canada then, in my opinion, some allowances should be made the community for it. I wish to say I do not want to see this bill go by default. I am putting up a plea for some recognition for the small municipalities that find themselves in a very difficult position at the present time.


Mr. PEARKES:: In order to show that this request from the municipality of Esquimalt is quite removed from party politics I should like to add my support to the remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), because the municipality of Esquimalt is partly in the federal district of Nanaimo, and I can vouch for every word that he has uttered as to the very heavy burden which that small municipality has carried. In addition to that, I would add that the rural country just behind that municipality has also had to bear a heavy burden for the maintenance of their roads which have been severely damaged by the heavy military traffic, for which they were never designed, in moving from the Esquimalt naval dock and the central forts into the outlying forts in the district. If this is an indication that the present government intends to help those municipalities which are bearing a heavy burden from the dominion point of view, then I would certainly approve the idea of assisting Ottawa in that respect; but as has already been said, this policy must apply not only to Ottawa; it should apply to all those other places where a heavy federal burden is borne by a small municipality.


Thomas Langton Church: Equality of treatment is
all we ask for.


Alphonse Fournier: It strikes me
that the situation of Ottawa is not quite the same as that of other cities throughout the country.


Douglas King Hazen: Much better than the situation of a good many of them.


Alphonse Fournier: In 1858 Ottawa
was just one of those very small towns. It was chosen as the capital of the country. After confederation buildings went up and we had to apply to this town for services, to use their waterworks services. That is the way it started. In 1877 we signed an agreement to pay them $7,000 a year. If you look around to the other cities in the country which were built independently of government functions, and where the people are asking the government every day to put up public buildings,
City oj Ottawa Agreement

you will see that the situation, is different. That does not occur in Ottawa. I do not want to defend Ottawa too much; I happen to live across the river. I sympathize with all these members who are asking for recognition for their towns and cities. I happen to live in a town just across from the capital city of Ottawa. There is no grant given to that town, though they have public buildings there.
Really the principle is not new. If we are not to change section 125 of the British North America Act, which provides that no land or property belonging to the federal or provincial governments is liable to taxation, I do not know how in this capital city we can get the services we need without paying those who have the facilities. That is the way I see it. I do not believe the amount of $300,000 is actually too much, in view of all the new construction that has been put up during the war, which certainly was not requested by anyone in the city of Ottawa. I think it is only fair that we should pay for the fire protection, water service, police protection and so on.


Thomas Langton Church: The principle is national as well as local.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Fournier (Hull) thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 161, to authorize a certain agreement between His Majesty the King and the Corporation of the City of Ottawa.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. POULIOT


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate that I should have to rise for the second time to-day on a question of privilege. The five o'clock edition of the Ottawa Citizen has this to say:
Pouliot attacks Canada's new Governor General.
A strong attack on Field Marshal Sir Harold Alexander, new Governor General, was heard in the House of Commons this afternoon from Jean Francois Pouliot, independent Liberal from Temiscouata.
I protest most strongly against the imputation that I have attacked the new governor general. I did not do so. My words are there. All I did say was to give him a friendly warning to mind his own business, and it was my duty as a member of parliament to do so.



FISH INSPECTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries) moved the second reading of bill No. 91, to amend the Fish Inspection Act.
Grote Stirling: Would the minister be good enough to make a statement on the bill.


Mr. BRIDGES:: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was introduced into the house I stated that the objects of the same were threefold: first, to extend the definition of the word "fish" to include shellfish. Possibly it would have been wiser on my part if I had used the word "clarify". The real object is to clarify the definition of the word "fish" to include shellfish. The second object is to enable the governor in council to make regulations respecting the processing and marking of fish to be packed in containers. The third object is to provide for seizure as well as for powers of confiscation upon conviction for an offence against the act or regulations. The last named addition will bring this act in line with the Fisheries Act and the Meat and Canned Foods Act.	.
I do not know that there is any necessity for me to elaborate any further at this stage. We are all most anxious to have the business of the house expedited as quickly as possible. In moving the second reading of this bill I should' like to point out that after second reading takes place it is my intention to move that the bill be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries. I feel, and I am sure most hon. members will agree with me, that a bill of this kind is a most, appropriate one to be referred to one of our standing committees. I believe that most of the members of this house who are interested in the fishing industry are members of that standing committee. Therefore there will be ample opportunity for a full'discussion of the bill and its merits before that standing committee. I do not think there is any need for me to say anything further at this time.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have just one word to say. First, may I compliment the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges) upon his intention to refer this bill to the marine and fisheries committee. It is some seven or eight years since this committee has had anything referred to it. I should like to suggest that in the session to follow he refer to that committee the Fisheries Act. If there is any act on the statute books that needs overhauling, it is our Fisheries Act. Since this bill has just three sections I think we can easily deal with it during the present session.

Fish Inspection Act


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the proper procedure in regard to this bill is to refer it to the marine and fisheries committee. I understand that at the moment this is not a bill of wide implications, and the committee will be in better position to deal with it than we in the house. I agree that this is the proper procedure.


Douglas King Hazen: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the speaker who preceded me that this bill can very well be referred to the marine and fisheries committee, but before it is so referred, there are one or two questions I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges). The bill states that the underlined words are added to remove any doubts as to the inclusion of shellfish under the act. I wish to ask the minister when any doubt first arose that shellfish were not included under the very wide definition of "fish" contained in the act. When did a question come to the attention of his department that caused any doubts to the meaning of this word in the act, as a result of which this amendment is now proposed?
Any doubt that arose must have come up after May 13, 1932, which is the date of chapter 31 of the statutes of that year which amended the act and provided that the governor in council had the right to make regulations concerning oysters. Evidently it was thought at that time that shellfish came under the act, for if that had not been the case the amendment would not have been made in 1932.
The bill grants additional powers to make regulations. The Fish Inspection Act, which is chapter 72 of the Revised Statutes of 1927, states in section 4, subsection 2:
All regulations made hereunder shall take effect from the date mentioned therein for the purpose, and shall be published in the Canada Gazette and in the prefix in the volume of the statutes of Canada published next after the making thereof.
It is amazing to find that the provisions in other acts with respect to the publication of regulations vary considerably. I shall not take up the time of the house in reading those particular sections about regulations in a number of other acts, but I would point out that the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, which is chapter 120 of the Revised Statutes of 1927, contains a different provision. The Importation and Sales Act, chapter 100, Revised Statutes of 1927, contains another provision and the Meats and Canned Foods Act contains another provision about regulations. You can pick out other acts and you will find that this section regarding publication
of regulations is worded in a different way. I think the time has come when a committee of the house should be set up to consider the question of regulations and government by order in council. I believe that we have been drafting these sections in the different acts for a long enough time now to adopt some standard form to be inserted in acts with regard to the publication of regulations.
May I add this? Under our form of democratic government the people who elected us to the House of Commons elected us to make the laws. The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Ilsley) the other day used words to that effect when he addressed this house; and we are neglecting our duty as members of this house when we allow the laws to be made by order in council. So far as regulations dealing purely with administrative matters are concerned, it seems to me that there is no objection to their being made by order in council on recommendation of the minister; but when it comes to regulations that have the force of law and impose a penalty, then the members of this house are neglecting their duty in permitting that to be done, for we were elected to make the laws and we have no right to delegate that authority.
Another question that I would ask the minister is this. What is the difference between a fishery inspector and a fishery guardian? Are they both appointed by the civil service commission, or has the minister or his department the power to appoint one of these officials, the other being appointed by the civil service commission? I ask this question because I was informed recently that a fishery inspector living near Shediac, New Brunswick, resigned early this year to take another position. A resident of the community wrote the Department of Fisheries on behalf of a soldier who had returned from overseas after nearly six years of service, had been wounded at Cannes and was a married man with two children. In reply the writer of the letter was informed that the position was not open yet but that when it was open it would be advertised by the civil service commission and that the qualifications were that the applicant had to have a high-school education and a knowledge of the fishing business. The position was not, I am informed, advertised by the civil service commission, but was filled by the Department of Fisheries by the appointment of a man who never had a high-school education, knew little about the fishing business and had never served overseas although he was in the ground forces of the R.C.A.F. for a time. It seems to me that we are entitled to some explanation of this appointment.
Fish Inspection Act

I am in favour of having this bill referred to the committee, because I think it can more readily be dealt with there and there are one or two matters that should and no doubt will be explained to us more fully there before the bill is passed in its present form.
Motion agreed to and bill read' the second time. Mr. Bridges thereupon moved that the bill be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries.


Grote Stirling: Was the minister not intending to answer the questions that have been asked of him?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I really was, to be perfectly frank, but the second reading was carried so quickly that I did not have time and I suppose it was only human to seize such an opportunity not to answer. But with the permission of the house, if I am in order I shall reply briefly to the remarks that have been made by the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen).
As to any doubts about the definition of the word "fish", I believe that this matter was first brought to the attention of the Department of Justice some twenty years ago and they gave the decision that in their opinion the word "fish" did include shellfish. But possibly the opinion was of such a nature that there was always a feeling that it should be further clarified and made statutory and the law of the land. I think the real reason was because in the Meat and Canned Foods Act the word "fish" is defined as follows:
"fish" does not include shellfish and crustaceans.
That was probably the real reason why the officials of my department thought the word "fish" should be defined to include shellfish as was always the intention in this act.
In reply to the other point my hon. friend made about laws being made by order in council, I am only too pleased to state that the regulations passed under this and similar acts under my department are not passed by virtue of the War Measures Act but have been passed in this manner for many, many years, so that there is nothing new or out of the way about them.
My hon. friend also asked me the difference between a fishery inspector and a fishery guardian. The guardians are appointed by the minister and are assumed to be suitable persons for the position. For the purposes of the act and the regulations thereunder they more or less have the powers of a police constable. Their general duties are more those of policing. When we come to fishery inspectors they are on what we might call a

higher level. They are appointed by the civil service commission, and the appointments are permanent. They under direction are responsible for administering laws and regulations by controlling the fisheries and fish industry in a specified district, to prosecute violators thereof, to direct, inspect and report on the work of fishery guardians, to examine waters and report on spawning, migrating and other related conditions, to issue permits and licences, to collect and account for revenues, and to collect and prepare statistical information ; also, when qualified by a course of instruction, to inspect, grade, and certify prepared fish and fish products according to the regulations and to inspect fish-curing and canning establishments, the operations of the establishments, and the product prior to and during processing.
As far as the appointment which my hon. friend was referring to, I do not know that it is quite relevant to the motion before the house, but I would state that as yet no permanent appointment has been made to the position he has in mind. It will be made by the civil service commission after due advertisement and so on. I have some slight knowledge of the case he has in mind, but I do not feel in a position this evening, nor do I think I am called upon at the moment, to go into it in detail. I would suggest that he put a question on the order paper seeking this information, and I shall be only too pleased to answer.
I do not think there is anything further I need say in connection with this bill.
Motion agreed to and bill referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries.



PENITENTIARY ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of bill No. 92, to amend the Penitentiary Act, 1939.
He said:	When the bill was introduced and
read the first time I made a brief statement as to its object, and I do not know that at this time there is anything that I should add. Hon. members know that the penitentiaries royal commission had recommended the appointment of a commission of three persons to administer the penitentiaries and had also made a large number of other recommendations for the improvement of the penal institutions in Canada, many of which would necessitate agreement with the provincial authorities and probably some constitutional amendment. Following the report in 1939, an

Penitentiary Act
act was adopted to provide for its implementing, but the act was to come into force only on proclamation. Before proclamation was issued war broke out, and it was felt that during the period of the war it would not be proper to go on with the projects recommended by the commission. Active hostilities have tow ceased, and there is hope that within a reasonable time both the shortage of materials which will be required for the additional construction necessary to carry out recommendations of the report, and the shortage of man-power for additional trained staff that will also be necessary, may have ceased and that it will be possible to do something which a great many consider is long overdue toward the amelioration of our penal institutions, especially in the aspect of reform for those confined in those institutions.
The act as adopted in 1939 would require, if it were to be (proclaimed, at least one amendment. There was a provision in the act that the appropriations made for the penitentiaries branch of the Department of Justice would be available during the fiscal year 1939-40 for the purposes of the new regime to be instituted under the statute. In order to proclaim the act at this time and to have it practicable there must be at least an amendment to that provision to make the appropriations voted for the fiscal year in which the act will be proclaimed available for use by the new body.
It is suggested that there be other slight amendments of the act. I am informed by the officers of the department that one of the difficulties my predecessor was up against in trying to form a commission was the fact that the act provided for the appointment of commissioners for a period of ten years without any provision being made for superannuation or retirement pension, and that it was not attractive for the kind of men who would be apt to be proper officials to carry out the important functions provided for. It is therefore being suggested that the commissioners be appointed during pleasure and that they come under the Superannuation Act.
A second suggestion is that, instead of having to appoint at once three commissioners, the governor in council may appoint one or more commissioners; and my intention is, when the act or that part of it which would apply is proclaimed, to try to find one who would be a competent chairman of the commission and to have him do the preliminary work-because there is a lot to be done before the new system can be fully operated- and make concrete recommendations which can be brought to parliament in the estimates for implementing.
One of the features about which the most concern has been expressed is that which would have to do with the establishment in Canada of something similar to the Borstal system in the United Kingdom. The commission in making its report stated emphatically that the Borstal system could not be established in the penitentiaries, that it is something which would have to be a corollary of a unified system of penal institutions in and for Canada. If I had nothing else to attend to and could devote my whole time to the preparation of what is required to implement the penitentiary report it might not be necessary to delegate the preliminary work to someone else, but my experience is that I shall not and that none of the present officers of the Department of Justice will have the time to do that, and that if it is to be done-and I do not see how anything practicable can be worked out without its being done-we shall have to get a good full-time man to take this report, investigate the situation of each one of the penitentiaries, interview the provincial departments in each one of the provinces, and see to what extent it will be possible to get some agreement on some unified system of administering the penal institutions of the country.
It may be necessary for the appointee, before proceeding very far along these lines, personally to go and make some studies of the systems in the United Kingdom and in some of the states of the United States of America and recommend then the details of the changes to be made in order that we may have a system of penal institutions that will be more helpful in the task of reforming many of those who are sentenced to gaol or given penitentiary sentences. As a matter of fact, the situation is not too bad here. I suppose there is not an hon. member who does not know of some one or more cases where laudable reform has taken place in the conduct and manner of living of some poor unfortunate who had fallen by the wayside. But unfortunately that is not the general rule, and there is considerable room for at least the hope of improvement by providing additional assistance to some of those unfortunate persons who do succumb. The purpose of this bill is to make as speedily as it can be made the preparation and implementing of concrete proposals to that end. The bill is noit a long one. The statute itself had fully covered the ground and the only substantial changes are the three I have mentioned.
Mr. DAN McIVOR (Fort William):: I am sure that those of us who have familiarized ourselves with the causes of the background that sends young men or women or old men
Penitentiary Act

to the penitentiary, those of us who have familiarized ourselves, through our dealings with others, with what goes on in the penitentiaries, and those of us who know something of the fight that those who have come out and want to make good have had to put up in meeting the difficulties against which they have to struggle, will welcome the amendment, especially in the second clause providing for the appointment of a commissioner to study the commendable proposals that were made by the royal commission.
I have congratulated' the Minister of Justice on former occasions on the fact that he did not wish to have men complete sentences in the penitentiary if this could be avoided, but was willing to let a man out when he showed a desire to be a decent citizen. He allowed me to have two men out during last summer, and they have conducted themselves so well since they came out that they would compare favourably with the members of this house in their conduct. I would say too that out of the 130 that I have had an opportunity of sponsoring there has been only one man who has gone back to Burwash. The reason for his return there is that he was too fond of something that injured his power of thinking, and he would not turn to that permanent cure for alcohol or any other evil which to me is the only cure for sin or anything else.
I commend the minister for his humanity in being willing to put into practice the findings of the royal commission, because I know well the character of one of the men on that commission, a former attorney general of Manitoba, a clear-thinking graduate of old Manitoba university. These men can conduct themselves on any commission with credit, and I am proud to think that the minister is now preparing to put into practice the findings of that royal commission. I am sure we shall all give him wholehearted support.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): This is another piece of legislation which is without any partisan appeal. To borrow an adjective from the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, it is a humanitarian piece of legislation and it will have, I am sure, the support and best consideration of the house. I regret, however, that further delay seems to be anticipated in giving effect to the findings of the commission.
It will very shortly be ten years since this commission was named.. I know that the Minister of Justice was not responsible for the relays resulting from the great war. This -bill is not a very long one, and the responsibility of the minister may not go beyond it. But I must tell him that it is thoroughly disap-
[Mr. Mclvor.3
pointing to the house to learn that the putting into effect of legislation as important as that, of 1939 should be further delayed by an investigation into the findings of the royal commission.
Royal commissions on penal reform have been numerous in this country. In 1832 a commission was appointed by the legislature of Upper Canada and there have been a great many such investigations since. Between 1911 and 1914 I had a good deal to do with the administration of the penitentiaries. While in Europe in 1912, I visited a number of penal institutions in England and a number in France. Shortly after that a commission was named primarily to investigate and report upon conditions at Kingston. But the inquiries and recommendations of that commission did extend to the penal system of all Canada. A little later, in 1920, another commission was appointed and finally the Areham-bault commission was set-up. They all came to the same end: nothing was done. The Archambault commission investigated for about two years. Its members spent a number of months in foreign countries, and they brought in a complete and detailed report. That commission advised that a penitentiary commission be set up. The legislation was enacted by parliament in the month of April, 1939. Once the war began it was probably proper to wait until it was over before implementing the legislation, but there was no very good reason between the month of April, 1939, and the month of September for doing nothing about the matter The bill has been twice amended and we now have to consider another amendment.
The purpose of this bill according to one of the first sections is, as the minister has stated, to inquire into the report of the Archambault commission and tell the government what portion of it should be put into force. I regret these dilatory methods. The matter is one of utmost urgency. I am aware and the house is aware that the minister himself cannot be expected to engage in detail of that kind, but the fact is that a commission of extremely able men spent two years in investigating and putting into perfect form and into a concise series of recommendations the result of their labours. With great- deference. I suggest that it seems a waste of time to investigate further the findings of the commission.
Without this legislation some person should be found who could advise the minister as he is advised daily in the many aspects of the work of his department, and thus enable him to give immediate effect to this much-needed legislation. What is more disturbing

Penitentiary Act
is that the minister says that if effect is to be given1 to all the recommendations, some constitutional amendments will have to be made. Well, Mr. Speaker, if any measure of penal reform must remain in abeyance until the tangled skein of dominion-provincial relations is untangled, then we must abandon all hope of reforming in our time our penal system. It is true that the provinces have jurisdiction over their gaols. The sooner we set them the good example of reforming our penitentiaries, the sooner will reform permeate the whole Canadian system.
What is to be said for further delay? The war is over. People are ready and willing to consider all manner of social reform. When one travels abroad and sees something of the penal systems of other countries one realizes how much it is possible to do for those unfortunate Canadians who by some accident, of birth or training, are spending weary days behind the bars.
I venture to submit to the house that there will be no legislation brought forward at this session that has greater possibilities of frustration than this. People who have been looking forward for a chance to mend their ways and youth which needs the benefit of these reforms are going to be disappointed if all further reform is to await further investigation. I suggest to the minister that he find someone-and he need not go very far or take much time in finding someone-who would be able to present to him in succinct form the kernel of the findings of the Archambault commission. He suggests that it may be necessary to go to the United States and to England. That is exactly what the Archambault commissioners did. They went to the United States; they went to England, to France, to Belgium, to Holland; they went to all countries which have a penal system worthy of study. They made a complete investigation and they informed the government what should be done. Surely, when the government set up the penitentiary commission in 1939 they did not anticipate that it would be necessary to set up another commission to find out what the first commission meant when it made its report. For these reasons I submit to the house it is unfortunate that there should be further delay in implementing that part of the Archambault report which has the approval of the government.


Thomas Langton Church: For
a great many years this matter has been coming before the House of Commons in the estimates in the last days of the session. It has been discussed on the estimates of the minister's department,. We have been twentyfive years behind the times in the administration of this department. When I first came to the bouse I pointed out that the city of Toronto- h-ad spent a large sum of money in establishing a farm on north Yonge street and another women's farm. Deputations have appeared before the government asking for reforms. They got it in England twenty-five or thirty years ago in the Borstal system. What do we find here? We are away behind the times. Members of parliament do not have to get a permit from the minister to visit the penitentiaries; under the act they are classed as visitors. I brought a bill into this house in 1924 or 1925 and on different occasions to allow grand juries to visit these institutions twice a year in the cities or towns in which federal prisons are located and to present a report to the minister. I remember a charge to a grand jury at the Toronto fall assizes in 1927 by the late Chief Justice R. M. Meredith, one of the most prominent trial judges this country ever had, who stated that since magna charta it was a cardinal principle that the people should have a large share in the administration of justice, and that grand juries should be allowed to go into these various penal institutions, both federal and provincial, in county towns throughout Canada. I should be glad if I could have not only the attention of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) while I -am dealing with these matters, but that of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), who is also the Attorney General. The chief justice said that, whether rightly or wrongly, these institutions were managed by crown officers; and it was one of the principles of magna charta that no one should be imprisoned without a trial by his peers. A grand jury had found a sane man in an asylum. For many years the chief justice urged on departments this question of a rigid system of inspection, and I am sorry the government of the, day has not adopted that principle.
The result is that these institutions are inspected only by crown officers. The visitors' books show that hardly anyone else visits them; yet they are an agency of this parliament, and we are supposed to be living in a civilized country. After all is said and done, Christianity is part of the law of England and automatically became part of the law of Canada by the Constitutional Act of 1792. We find grand juries all over the country bringing in reports with regard to very poor conditions in provincial, municipal and federal prisons. There has been a great deal of talk of prison reform in the Christian churches, as well as in the Jewish churches. In Toronto we have a civic institution in my constituency,
Penitentiary Act

walls around it and no one can get in. The grand jury cannot go in there, only officials once in a while from Ottawa, and yet it is kept up with the taxpayers' money. It was the armed strength of the barons that gave us the magna charta. As one of the great administrators of criminal law has said, these institutions are managed, whether rightly or wrongly, by crown officers. Many of these men had no previous experience in this work. They learn something about human nature by experience only or being called upon to act in a minor capacity at one of their institutions. It may be that they are appointed by patronage or by members of parliament. I do not charge this government with that any more than any other government, but that has been the practice in these institutions from time immemorial.
I complained to the splendid and efficient officer commanding No. 3 district, and he wrote me a letter which I shall not read. Many of these men were moved from Fort Henry into those two other institutions. I contend that under the act the wardens had no right to receive them; they had no authority under the laws of the province or the Penitentiary Act of Canada. If the wardens did receive them they were liable for civil damages for illegal detention.
I ask for some reforms. Mr. Justice Mackay of Toronto as one of the finest trial judges in Canada. He was the able judge in a libel suit between the Toronto Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star which lasted for some days. If we had a new royal commission made up of men like him we might get somewhere on this reform. The minister now has an assistant known as the Solicitor General to get speedier results, whom I do not see here to-night. If this matter is handled like the internments I venture to say it will be months and months before anything is done, and few will get out of the trenches by Christmas.
I am glad that the minister has decided to carry out some of the principles of the report of the commission and I wish him every success in his work. He has been a zealous and faithful, hard-working Attorney-General and I hope, being the humanitarian he is, he will try to get some value for the money. The taxpayers of Canada expect reforms in this department and want value for their money.
I complained also about the provincial and municipal institutions. They are all relics, some of the middle ages. Some of these institutions were built before confederation. Many of them have been condemned as being unfit for civilians. If they are, why are they considered good enough in some cases for soldiers, especially soldiers who for two or three years 
were good soldiers? These men have had their gratuities and other credits as well taken away and their suffering wives and children are out on the street. I hope the minister will get something done. I hope he will do it now. It would be a good thing if each minister had on his desk a sign, "Do it now."


Mr. F. E. JAENICKE (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, when I first read this amendment to the Penitentiary Act the same thing struck me as struck the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), namely, that the commissioners were to be appointed to consider the report of the royal commission to investigate the penal system of Canada. This is a step in the right direction. It is a small step, but a step just the same. I endorse the view that has been put forward by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), because I believe that the government could have gone much farther in this penal reform. I wish to endorse everything that has been said by the hon. member for Fort William and the hon. member for Stanstead in praise of Mr. Justice Archambault and his associates on the commission. They did some wonderful work. I do not think I ever read a report of a royal commission that exhibited more painstaking work and more courage in their recommendations.
In 1939, subsequently to that report being received, a new Penitentiary Act was passed which, however, has not yet come into force. I have studied this new act and compared it with the old law clause by clause, and I can see no fundamental change with the exception that a commission is to be appointed instead of a superintendent. No doubt some of the appalling conditions disclosed in the report have been rectified, but these conditions were due to inefficient and incompetent personnel. The new act proposes no fundamental changes and unless the government or those charged with the administration of our penitentiaries are vigilant some of the conditions disclosed in that report may return. However, what interested me particularly in the report was not so much the sensational disclosures of the acts and omissions of inefficient officials as the underlying fundamental complaint of the commission that our penitentiary system is more a system of punishment than a system of paying attention to the reformation of the convict, and there is the further startling fact that our present system makes real habitual criminals out of those who could be reformed and made useful members of society. That startling fact is as true to-day as it was at the time the commission made its report.
Our prison population is still increasing, and while there has been some reduction in the

Penitentiary Act
number of convictions during the1 last few years of the war, to which reduction I shall refer later, the number of recidivists, that is repeaters, has alarmingly increased. According to a statistical table on page 214 of the commission's report, supplemented by figures which I find on page 983 of the last Canada Year Book, conditions in our country are really appalling. In 1931 the recidivists, offenders who have more than two convictions against them, totalled 3,047; in 1939 they totalled 18,232; in 1942 second offenders totalled over 13,097. There was some decrease in 1942, and of course I claim that it is due to the war and the consequent period of employment and relative prosperity. I shall refer to that later.
I have _ not the figures for recidivists or plural offenders for England and Wales, but the report contains the total number of convictions in the mother country between 1931 and 1936, and a comparison of the figures for England and Wales with the figures for Canada speaks volumes. In 1931, 46,810 convictions for indictable offenses in England and Wales compare with 31,542 in Canada. In 1933 the number of convictions in England and Wales was 42,248 as compared with 32,942 in Canada. In 1935 the number of convictions in England and Wales was 47,424 as compared with 33,531 in Canada, or, roughly, 118 per 100,000 of population of England and Wales as against 305 per 100,000 of population in Canada. The latest Canadian figure, for 1942, is 337 per 100,000 of population in Canada. Commenting on the state of affairs, the commissioners say:
The above figures cast a grave reflection on the methods of treating convicted prisoners in Canada. That the number convicted three times or more per 1,000 of convicted persons, should have risen from 87 in 1922 to 224 in 1936 indicates that the present system is neither effecting reformation nor affording protection to society against further offences by prisoners when liberated.
The commission makes detailed and specific recommendations as to how we should cope with this situation; that is, with the reformation of prisoners. I shall first refer to their recommendations for prisoners in general and later to their recommendations as to the treatment of young offenders. Roughly, their recommendations are as follows: (a) segregation; (b) the grades and merit system; (c) proper medical treatment and analysis; (d) a programme of recreation and reading; (e) education; (f) centralization and unification of our prison system.
Time will not permit me to go into detail with respect to these recommendations, but
just a word about segregation, or rather the absence of segregation. This is what the commission say in their report:
It is hopeless to strive to effect the reformation of a prisoner while, at the same time, exposing him to the destructive association of depraved criminals who have no determination to live anything but degenerate lives of crime.
. . . The undeniable responsibility of the state to those held in its custody is to see that they are not returned to freedom worse than when they were taken in charge.
No attempt is made at segregation; in fact, because of our system no attempt can be made at segregation. We have seven penitentiaries throughout Canada, and prisoners are sent to the penitentiary nearest to the locality in which they were convicted. Therefore we could only make an attempt at segregation if we could send prisoners to a particular penitentiary set aside for a particular class of convicts, and there is no such arrangement.
In company with four colleagues I visited Kingston penitentiary a few weeks ago and as the law and regulations now stand, so far as the taking care of the physical welfare of the prisoners is concerned we found conditions in that institution as good as could be expected. I believe that the officers with whom I came in contact are interested in their duties, and by the way I might mention that considering the responsibilities which some of them carry, I think they are woefully underpaid. There is no segregation at Kingston, and of course there cannot be any. Some of the prisoners as we walked through the corridors were through with their work and were conversing freely with each other. There was no segregation, and young prisoners undoubtedly were mixing with old, seasoned criminals. You could not have a different work-shop for each different co'nvict, for there is not sufficient room.
They have a classroom in Kingston, and now for a few minutes I am going to speak about education. They have also a teacher in that institution, although we did not have an opportunity of talking with him because it was Saturday afternoon and he was not on duty. There was no compulsion to attend classes except that illiterates are compelled to learn to read and write; also those who have not reached either grade 3 or grade 4 are forced to attend classes. We went through one cell block and were invited to go into the cells because the prisoners were out at their work at that particular time. There is a little table in each cell and above it a shelf where they keep books and other personal effects. The cells I inspected, about ten of them, showed that each of the inmates took some interest in reading. I took the trouble
Penitentiary Act

of looking to see what books they were interested in, and I am sorry to say that all these books were fiction, and pulp paper magazines at that. There was only one prisoner who seemed to be interested in somewhat different reading. I found that he had an English-French dictionary and a French high school grammer such as would be used in an Englishspeaking high school. I find that no real progress has been made with respect to education since the commission made its report. Let me quote from the report of the commission with regard to this question of the schooling of prisoners and the regulations pertaining to education-page 114:
The observance of these regulations is largely perfunctory, and individual examination and schooling of the prisoners is almost entirely lacking. The teacher, himself, is not given the recognition to which the importance of his work entitles him. Even his uniform as an officer is of a lower grade than that of the other members of the staff who form the classification board. This inferiority of status not only reacts upon the teachers themselves, but has a tendency to lessen their Standing in the eyes of the prison population.
The commission goes on to comment upon the low salaries paid to teachers, and states -page 119:
Teachers and librarians who are selected should have training in pedagogy and in librarianship, and have the necessary personality and zeal to carry out the important task these officers are called upon to perform. . . .
When suitable and1 properly trained teachers ana librarians are secured, they should be paid an adequate remuneration and given an adequate status in the official personnel;
Even for the coming year there seems to be no prospect of making any progress, because the penitentiary estimates provide for no increase in teachers. The estimates provide for five teachers and one assistant teacher for seven penitentiaries, so that some penitentiaries must go without. A teacher is paid $1,860 and the assistant is paid $1,800. Can we say that $1,860 is adequate for a man who should be competent to teach almost anything, even university subjects? That is not as ridiculous as it may sound. The officer who guided us through the penitentiary told us of some young man who took up his high school course in Kingston and then got two scholarships at Queen's university.
I would suggest that in connection with the training of teachers for our penitentiaries, training such as is suggested in the royal commission's report, we should set up one or two training schools at our universities or other institutions of learning and provide scholarships to the right men, available to some of the officers who are now on duty in our penitentiaries, in order that we might produce for our penitentiaries a teaching staff which

is not only fitted academically but also trained to deal with the particular pupils who may be in their charge.
The last report of the acting superintendent makes mention of some steps being taken to give some of our officers courses in job training. I understand that over one hundred of these officers have taken advantage of this course. While this is a good start, it is in my opinion entirely inadequate. The course consists of five iectures of two hours each, or a total of ten hours, after which the officer gets a certain certificate, and that is as far as they go. There is no question in my mind that the trade instructors whom we have in our penitentiaries should be classified as teachers, in a way. They are the superintendents at the different workshops attached to our penal institutions. I was very much impressed with the trade shops and also with the trade instructors in them. These trade instructors are doing a really fine job. In Kingston they have a mailbag workshop, a printing shop, a shoe factory, a machine shop, a garage, a paint shop, et cetera. The prisoners who work in those shops are paid five cents a day, and as I said, the trade instructor supervises the work in each of these departments. The instructors with whom I talked all take a keen interest in their work and a great pride in the products of their respective shops. I was particularly interested in the printing shop, where they do very fine work indeed with some obsolete machinery. I would suggest to the minister that they get a linotype machine in Kingston, and if they have that, I can assure hon. members that they can print anything in Kingston. At the present time they are printing all the forms and books, and they do the bookbinding for the penitentiaries themselves and also for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It seems to me that we are short of printers in Ottawa at the present time, at least as regards government printing, and I would suggest-facetiously, of course-that some of this printing be done in Kingston, where they can do a really fine job.


Mr. MITCHELL:: If I might ask my hon. friend a question, has he consulted a labour organization before he made that statement?


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I did not hear the minister, but I can say that they are doing printing for .themselves and for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Another shop which interested me considerably was the shoe factory. At the time of our visit they were repairing old shoes and boots that had been collected throughout the country in the drive for old clothes for the use of the stricken people of Europe.

Penitentiary Act
There were sacks upon sacks of this foot- , wear, and they were making a real job of triiisforming old and discarded boots and shoes into substantial articles. The new shoes that they can manufacture in that shop are second to none. It seemed to me unfair that prisoners who take an interest in their work and who toil hard are paid the same wage as the man who will loaf at any opportunity when he thinks he can get away with it. There should be recognition of the diligent worker, and he should be paid more, say on a sliding scale according to experience and diligence. I understand that most of these trade instructors have made reports and recommendations to that effect, but so far no attention has been paid to these recommendations. The general opinion is that, if a man's diligence is recognized in such a way, he will come to have a greater interest in his trade and perhaps it might mean his determination to follow the trade after discharge and again become a free and useful citizen. I endorse this opinion with all the force of which I am'' capable, and strongly recommend to the minister that the reports and recommendations of these trade instructors be carefully considered, and, whenever possible, put into force. It is my opinion that these trade instructors have a better opportunity to study the convicts than any other penitentiary officer.
One of the subjects to which the commission paid particular attention and in respect of which they made a detailed report of conditions in each penitentiary was medical treatment, et cetera, and this is what they say- page 120:
It is necessary that an efficient medical staff should be retained in order to correct as far as possible any physical or mental defects of the prisoners. For this purpose, the services of a physician, a psychologist or psychiatrist, and a dentist should be available at each .institution. We already have a physician and a dentist in attendance at each Canadian penitentiary, but although it is now generally recognized that the services of a psychiatrist are also essential . . . provision has not yet been made for the regular attendance of a psychiatrist or psychologist. ... Physical defects are often the cause of irascibility and of a propensity for criminal conduct. The removal of such defects will often result in the successful reformation of prisoners who have been afflicted with them.
. . . Thorough mental examinations, complemented by a knowledge of his personal history, background and family history, should be made of every prisoner by an expert psychiatrist and physician. . . . Quite apart from humanitarian considerations, the question of greater economy is involved because the cost of maintaining a prisoner in the penitentiary is high, and if he can be cured, he ceases to be :a charge on the state and becomes instead an asset.
I may say that I discovered in Kingston that in that penitentiary a psychiatrist had been retained within the last three months who paid regular visits to the penitentiary, but we were not able to see him and the officer who took charge of us could not give us any particulars as to the nature of this specialist's interviews and investigations or of his report.
In general, however, I may say that I do not think the duties of the medical men have in any way been changed to conform with the recommendations of the royal commission as read by me a few moments ago. The estimates provide for only four doctors and two dentists, and, according to the amounts paid to each of them. I would say, of course, that they are not full-time medical officers; such seems to be the case. I hope that the medical services in our penitentiaries are not as inefficient as they were * at the time the commission made its report, but unless we pay strict attention, we may again relapse into the conditions in which the commissioners found some of the penitentiaries. Let me read some excerpts from their observations in respect of some of the medical services which they found pertaining in the majority of our penitentiaries at that time:
The medical service in many respects is unsatisfactory . . . all medical examinations appears to be conducted in a very superficial manner .	.	. when these men complain of
physical disabilities he (the doctor) refuses to take their complaints seriously. He should diagnose and prescribe entirely on medical grounds. Two men complained to the doctor that they were suffering from pains in their right side. They were reported by the doctor as malingerers who were making false complaints. but unfortunately their complaints were all too true and both men died of appendicitis. Tubercular patients are not receiving proper attention.
I do not know' what is being paid to medical men at the present time except that some of the salaries are as high as $3,200 for parttime medical services. I do not know what is paid to those who are not receiving a fixed retainer but are being paid for the calls which they make, but judging from the estimates we seem to get just what we pay for.
In connection with the payment to our medical officers as well as to other higher officials of the penitentiary staffs the commissioners have this to say:
Your commissioners are of the opinion that it is an economic fallacy to pay low salaries, which will have the incidental consequence of staffing the penitentiaries with the type of personnel so inferior as to be reflected in the management . . . and in the influence exerted upon the prisoners.
There seems to be no general policy as to medical treatment in our penitentiaries,

Penitentiary Act

because the difference between the amount spent in one penitentiary and the amount spent in another is so great that it would indicate that no over-all policy is being followed in that respect. On page 13 of the last report of the superintendent we have a table showing expenditures on medical and allied services and it discloses some odd figures.
In Kingston we paid $3,680.55 for medical and surgical services; $978 for an eye specialist; $834.60 for optical supplies; $2,482.66 for dental supplies and dentist's fees, or a total of $7,975.81.
In St. Vincent de Paul we spent $3,926.50 for medical and surgical supplies; $575 for an eye specialist; $145.28 for optical supplies; $4,676.11 for dental work, or a total of $9,322.89.
In Dorchester we paid $59.93 for medical and surgical fees; nothing at all for eye specialist; nothing at all for optical glasses, and $1,868 for dental work and dental supplies.
In Manitoba we paid $327.70 for medical and surgical supplies; nothing for eye specialist; $4 for a pair of glasses, and $227 for dental work.
. In British Columbia the expenditures for medical and surgical supplies were $627.85; $60 for eye specialist; $30.01 for optical supplies, and $459.50 for dental fees and dental work in general.
In Saskatchewan we paid $635.40 for medical and surgical supplies; $160 for eye specialist; $204.64 for optical supplies, and $844 for dental work.
In Collins Bay-


Thomas Reid: What year?


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Year ended March 31,
1944. It is the last report as. far as I understand. In Collins Bay we paid $22.25 for medical and surgical fees; $100 for eye specialist; $97.45 for optical supplies, and $119.91 for dental work.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Perhaps my hon.
friend does not know that at Collins Bay the prisoners are sent, when they are in proper condition, to do physical work and they are moved back to Kingston for medical treatment if they require it. That explains the very considerable difference between the per capita charges in Kingston and Collins Bay. '


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I accept the explanation, of course; but that would not apply to Dorchester. We spent $10.49 per capita in Kingston; $10.54 in St. Vincent de Paul; $5.14 in Dorchester; $2.31 in Manitoba; $4.53 in British Columbia; $6.85 in Saskatchewan. I will leave out the quotation for Collins Bay in view of the explanation just made by the minister.
[Mr. Jaemcke.J
On the point which I quoted a little while ago, the commission, considering the importance of physical and mental defects as far as the criminal tendency of the prisoners is concerned, recommends some considerable changes, and I do not think there is anything that stands in the way of their present application in full.
Another important recommendation which should receive the immediate attention of the government is the centralization of the whole penal system in Canada under one commission, to which the hon. member for Stanstead referred a little while ago, I am quite satisfied that many of our people do not even know about the condition of our penitentiaries and how they are governed. They do not know that there are only seven penitentiaries under ' federal jurisdiction and that we send to them only prisoners who receive sentences of two years or more, while convicted persons whose sentences are less than two years are sent to provincial, municipal or county gaols. Our people do not know that the majority of the convicts sentenced under federal law's are sent to prisons which are not under federal jurisdiction. Thus in 1942, 12,655 persons convicted of indictable offences under the federal criminal code -were sent to municipal, provincial or county prisons, while only 2,521 convicts were sent to penitentiaries.
In order that we may have some effective prison reform, all our prisons should be under one central authority. This is what the commission says in this regard:
There is no doubt in the minds of your commissioners that uniformity of administration and the application of scientific principles to such administration, if made applicable to all those who are incarcerated in penal institutions in the Dominion of Canada, would provide a better penal system and one to which the recommendations of your commissioners could be most fittingly applied. It is obvious, for example, that if different treatment than that recommended by your commissioners is given to the prisoners in provincial institutions . . . and the administration is not, supervised by the same authorities, the success of the system recommended by your commissioners W'ould be jeopardized, and the evils discerned in the antiquated treatment at present in existence would be permanently extended. The federal authorities would be handicapped in the proper treatment of those who come to federal institutions already stamped with the imprints of the multiple provincial institutions.
Every country in the world except the United States of America and Canada possesses a centralized penal system.	,
The commissioners go to some extent in a general way into conditions existing at gaols and1 reformatories under the provincial, county or municipal jurisdictions, and come to the conclusion that they are quite inadequate- and that is a mild term. -

Penitentiary Act
In England and Wales, with a population of approximately 41,000,000, they have twenty-five local prisons, four prisons under the Penal Servitude Act, one prison for women under this' act, one training centre, one preventive detention prison and seven Borstal institutions, or a total of thirty-nine. In Canada, with a population of around 12,000,000, we have twenty-two adult reformatories, seven penitentiaries and 118 provincial, county or municipal gaols, or a total of 147.
Do these figures not speak of the crying need of centralization of our whole prison system? I suggest to the government that perhaps at the forthcoming dominion-provincial conference this subject might at least be tentatively discussed, so that in the not too distant future we may have one centralized prison system in Canada. However, the most important item of reform which we need in Canada is the establishment of proper institutions for the treatment of young offenders between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one years. In fact I would include offenders up to twenty-three years as they do in England. It is with this class of prisoners that we should make a start in reformation. They are still young enough that, under proper guidance, direction and education, they can be moulded into good citizens.
The increase of crime in Canada, as shown by the figures which I presented a little while ago, applies equally to young offenders. According to the superintendent's report-the same report which I quoted a little while ago-there was on March 31, 1944, a total of 442 convicts under twenty-one years of age ifi our penitentiaries, an increase of seventy-nine over the previous year. This report also contains a graph showing the trend of admission to the penitentiaries of young offenders since 1931. I should like hon. gentlemen to study this graph a little, and I am sure they will agree with me that it is startling.
Crime among these young offenders is increasing at an alarming rate. In 1911, convictions of persons between ages of sixteen and twenty-one numbered 1,536. In 1942, it was 8,968, after reaching an all-time high of 10,480 in 1939. In the last few years of the war there was a decrease; but when we read of crime these days in our daily press, we find that most young offienders are involvel in the crimes being committed to-day. Let me read to the house a few extracts which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of November 2, a little over a week ago:
Two men sentenced each to thirty-five years for bank robbery, jail breaking.
Third man is given fifteen-year term by Kingston magistrate.
Ulysse Lauzon, 23, and Joseph Peltier, 19, were sentenced to-day to a total of thirty-five years each in penitentiary after pleading guilty on charges of bank robbery and jail breaking. Walter ICoresky, 22, was sentenced to fifteen years after conviction on two bank robbery charges. All three are from Windsor, Ont.
The extract which I shall now read speaks volumes, I think:
Before he imposed sentence, Magistrate Garvis said he wquld like to impose "very, very short" sentences if there was any certainty they would cease their criminal activities on their release, but, he said, their records did not indicate that possibility. He said the records of Lauzon and Peltier had been almost continuous since they were sixteen years old.
There was some hope for ICoresky in the future because for two years he had no criminal record, the magistrate added.
In the comparison of our situation with that ^ of England and Wales in respect of convictions for indictable offences in this group, let me quote to the house a comparative table as set forth in our commission's report:
England and Wales
Number of	per 100.000
convictions	population
1921	
5 834	3481031	
4,848	381
Canada
Number of convictions
Per 100,000
population between 16 and 21
3,064	779
6,840	1,324
I have been unable to locate the figures for England and Wales in 1941, but as already mentioned the number of convictions in this age group in Canada was close to 9,000 in 1942, another increase of almost 3,000 since 1931.
There is no doubt in my mind that England and Wales stand foremost in the world in connection with reformation of prisoners, and 47696-1371	-
especially in connection with their treatment and training of youthful offenders. This system which they apply to these youthful criminals is called the Borstal system, which has been the model for many of the civilized countries of the world.
In England youthful convicts are first sent to a clearing-house where a thorough investi-
Penitentiary Act


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been so fully dealt with, and I find myself so fully in agreement with what has been said, that I would not take up the time of the house even for the very few minutes I intend to speak if it were not that I have almost a pious duty to say something on this matter in i^iew of the fact that some thirty-two years ago my father was chairman of the first of the three commissions that have been referred to, whose recommendations still lie in pigeon-holes, dealing with matters which apparently are again to be postponed for an indefinite number of years. I should like to repeat what has been said for the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), that happily this is not a partisan matter and happily-and I should like to emphasize this-in making suggestions to the Minister of Justice we are addressing them to a man who has no responsibility for the sad past, history of this situation.
I should like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the report of some thirty years and more ago, still waiting to be implemented. I can remember something about it. A great deal of honest, humane work was put into it. I know the members of the Biggar commission appointed some twelve years later also were humane men. They made recommendations. To-night we have heard high praise of Mr. Justice Archambault, who headed this last commission; and I believe if the members of this house would take five minutes to read some of the things in this report they would ask the Minister of Justice to take back this bill and bring in a bill that we could look at.
I should like to say just one thing about criminology. I am not an expert in it, but I take it we all agree that whatever amount of punishment we desire should be administered to people who fell by the way, we do not regard that as the whole job of penal institutions; but both for higher and lower reasons we all believe they should try also to correct and reform. I-imagine every member of this
house will agree with that statement. In the light of that, what are we to say to the fact that we have waited thirty-two years to deal with some of the things that were reported upon? Let me read a very few things from this report; I shall be very brief. The things they say here are at least thirty years old, and they may be one hundred years old for all I know. When I read the act of 1939 it seems to me it deals in a purely mechanical way with great human problems. I can find only one section in this act which even attempts to deal with any human problem. It deals with all kinds of technical questions of organization, though there were these three reports, three human documents asking that certain things be done. Let me read one or two sentences from the last report and see if hon. members feel happy that this is the kind of thing to which we subject men. We have heard the lamentable record that has been produced. I did not know those figures;
I was shocked, as I imagine everyone in this house was shocked, to hear those perfectly astouding figures showing the evil conditions which I presume result from the fact that apparently we almost lead the van in backwardness on this question. Let me mention just two or three of the conditions that still exist, as I understand it, particularly from the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke), to whom we must be grateful because he has looked at things for himself:
The rule of silence is in force except during certain designated periods. . . .
Classification, in so far as it exists, is unscientific and without practical effect. . . .
liducatioiL is neither satisfactory nor in accordance with the regulations. . . . No newspapers are permitted in the penitentiaries. . . .
Work is insufficient and, generally, trades are not taught because of the lack of industries. . . .
There is not sufficient physical exercise, especially on Sundays and holidays, and as a rule competitive games are prohibited.
Let me refer briefly now to some of the recommendations, which are interesting. Altogether- there are , some eightv-eight. These were before parliament when this act, which I have described as a mechanical means of dealing or rather not dealing with a great human problem, was passed; and I cannot find that any of these human recommendations were dealt with. Under the head of. prison employment, which I suppose we shall all agree is one of the most important things, there are twelve separate recommendations. I have read the act fairly carefully, and I think I am correct in saying there .is no reference to any of these. I realize that the act did grant a certain degree of liberty
Penitentiary Act

to the commissioners who were to be appointed, but surely parliament should be able to do something better than merely pass what I have called this mechanical act.
I have almost finished. I just wish to repeat what I have said previously. If every member of this house would take even ten minutes to look at this report I believe they would ask the Minister of Justice to take back this legislation and bring in a bill we can look at; and we would not ask to have this third report, this fine report by Mr. Justice Arch-ambault pigeon-holed, while someone else goes on to make a further report on things which were reported upon thirty years ago, twenty years ago and nearly ten years ago. It seems to me that what we lack apparently in this parliament, and perhaps in this country, someone like the good Lord Shaftesbury who would make it his job to see that these things are done.
I repeat what I said at the outset. I do not believe there is a single man in this house who wishes punishment or incarceration to be merely vindictive; I believe everyone wishes it to be corrective. We have seen the lamentable results of - the course we have followed as indicated by the figures given. How one can stand still and face perhaps years of more delay is something I cannot understand


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go into many statistics, although I have before me a number of statistics, some of which have been referred to by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke). May I compliment him upon his maiden speech and the unusual ability he has displayed in delivering it. I join with the hon. member who has preceded me in the fine sentiment he has expressed, having had something to do for many years with the administration of criminal justice.
I wonder why it becomes necessary in 1945 to appoint a commissioner to investigate and ascertain whether the royal commissioners did in fact make the recommendations they should have made. In reality that is the position of affairs under this bill. The minister's predecessor and the minister .have carried some of them into effect, but many have not been touched and those that have not been touched1 are some that most materially affect the welfare of the men in the penitentiaries of this country.
The purpose of penitentiary reform should be to assist in turning social liabilities into social assets. I am not one who is ready to paint a dark picture because I have known of cases where unusual reformation has taken
fMr. Macdonnell.]
place. However, such cases are the exception rather than the general rule. I have in mind one case which I think should be brought to the attention of the house, for it illustrates what can be done when there are appreciative personnel trained to administer the penal laws with a degree of 'tolerance and fairness.
It is the case of a young man who was sentenced, following a conviction for murder, to the penitentiary at Prince Albert and he stayed there for fifteen years. When he en>-tered the Saskatchewan penitentiary he was eighteen years of age. The crime he had committed1 was the result of difficulties within the family, the sordid environment in which he lived. When he entered the penitentiary he was in grade 2. He stayed there until 1944, when through the instrumentality of an investigation made under the present Min-* ister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) he was granted a ticket of leave. AVhen he left the penitentiary he had an education equivalent to that of grade 12 or one year in a university. He joined the armed forces, achieved high non-commissioned rank and will shortly be discharged. He has informed me that he intends to go forth into the world with a desire to do something to tell young men in this country that crime does not pay. That is one example of reform in our penal system as it exists to-day.
Many of the recommendations made in 1939 not only have not been carried into effect, but no effort has been made to carry them into effect. Mention was made this evening by the hon. member for Kindersley of the terrible situation that exists with regard to juvenile crime.. This has been increasing by leaps and bounds. I think this is due in part to the failure of the government to implement the recommendations of the penitentiary report, particularly those with reference to the establishment of Borstal institutions in this country. The minister may say that that is a matter which might cause constitutional difficulty, but I ask him: What has been done between the dominion and the provinces to carry out recommendation No. 1 of the Archambault commission, which reads:
_ The Canadian penal system should be centralized under^ the control of the government of Canada, with the federal authorities taking charge of all the prisons in Canada, the provinces retaining only a sufficient number to provide for offenders against provincial statutes, prisoners on remand and those serving short sentences.
My information is that, following the publication of that report of the royal commission, most if not all of the provinces expressed a

Penitentiary Act
willingness to permit the dominion, authorities to take over all reformatories within provincial jurisdiction. I may be asked what my authority is for making that statement. My authority is Mr. Justice McRuer, who was recently appointed- a judge of the high court of justice of Ontario and who was a member of the Archambault commission. Why has that recommendation not been carried into effect?
As I listened to the hon. member who preceded me I asked myself this question: Who is holding back prison reform in this dominion? Why has this matter been side-stepped and evaded over the years? I am informed that in 1939, following the publication of this report, the prisoners' aid society endeavoured to make personal representations to the Department of Justice but they were denied the opportunity of doing so. The failure to unify our penal institutions has resulted in conditions being such that in some cases juveniles entering the institutions graduate in very short order as high-grade postgraduate criminals.
Take, for instance, the spread of juvenile crime, referred to by the hon. member for Kindersley. The average number of major and indictable offences committed in Canada during the four years 1938-42 by those between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one years averaged 9,000 'a year. The proportion of young men entering our penal institutions is increasing. In 1936, of all the inmates in Canadian penitentiaries, nine per cent were under twenty-one years of age; in 1943 the figure was fifteen per cent.
Instead of something being done for the juvenile offender to give him a chance at rehabilitation through the establishment of a system analogous to the Borstal system, these young men are: being placed in institutions where they associate with old criminals. It . is all very well to say that there is some degree of segregation, but there cannot be sufficient segregation within one building to prevent old-timers from fully acquainting youngsters with all the secrets of the order to which they belong.
In respect of major crimes in 1900 there were 109 juvenile offenders out of every 100,000 of population in this dominion; in 1931, the number was 355 per 100,000 and in 1939, 469; or an increase of four times during a period of thirty-nine years.
In the matter of recidivists, multiple offenders, offenders returning for a second and a third time, between 1931 and 1942, of all the juveniles, youngsters between seven and sixteen years of ago, the number of repeaters
committing major crimes, not peccadilloes or unimportant infractions of the law, was thirty per cent; that is to say, three in every ten of those youngsters under sixteen years of age who had committed offences became repeaters in a period of eleven years. All this indicates to me that we in Canada are not doing our part by reeducation, by moral leadership, by moral suasion in our institutions to encourage these youngsters to an improved life. When we speak of reeducation I might point out that fifteen per cent of the juvenile offenders are described as illiterate. That condition demands that something must be done towards reeducating these boys and girls who commit offences. Yet there is no provision, no important provision to-day, to encourage education or to raise the standards of these young wrongdoers.
I am going to refer to the summary of the recommendations of the commission, some of which might have been earned into effect, some of which experience in recent years has shown should have been carried into effect.
I have already referred to centralized control. I refer to recommendation No. 6:
A planned reconstruction of the personnel of the penitentiary staffs throughout Canada should be effected in order that officers who have special training will be enlisted in the service.
There is a course to-day in that regard. It is a course that can be taken in one week. Visit these various penitentiaries and you find that there is no encouragement to efficiency on the part of the staffs to-day because of the limitation placed on their salaries. If we are to have the very best men possible for penal institutions parliament will have to raise the present rates of pay. The rates of pay for instructors run from $125 to about $175 a month. These rates must be raised if we are to secure the best possible men.
I come to recommendation No. 16:
A complete revision of the methods of classification of prisoners should be made, with provision for a thorough medical and psychiatric examination of prisoners.
Then No. 20:
All insane prisoners should be entirely removed from the prison population and treated in hospitals for the insane.
That is not being done. The minister says that there are no mental or insane prisoners in the penitentiaries. I will give an example. In Prince Albert penitentiary within the last year and a half there was a prisoner, and the warden had been warned that this man was insane. He paid no attention to that warning. Then a year and a half ago while the shoe instructor was locked up in a room
Penitentiary Act

alone with this prisoner, the instructor was stabbed. The prisoner was then transferred to a mental hospital, Had the principles of this recommendation been carried out that man would have been removed from the penitentiary- to a mental hospital before rather than after the event. The warden h'adl been warned, and because the warden did not carry out his duty one of the best guards in that penitentiary, Mr. Chisholm, suffered serious injuries and was laid up in the hospital for a long time. After a period of fifteen months of convalescence he has returned to penitentiary duty, although he has not yet fully recovered from his terrible experience.
I come to another recommendation, that could be carried out, one that dbes not require building materials, one that requires agreement between the dominion and the provinces, recommendation No. 59(b):
The embodiment of the principles of the English statutes in regard to allowing time for the payment of fines and imprisonment for the non-payment of fines.
Mr. ST. LAU'RENT:	That does not seem
to be a matter within the federal jurisdiction at all.


John George Diefenbaker: I admit that; I
realize that. But I am asking what has been done to bring together the dominion and the provinces in that regard, in order to assure that men, who, by reason of their circumstances, are unable to pay fines are not on that account imprisoned, while those able to pay find themselves in the position where they are not required to go to gaol. That is a matter which in England has actively been brought to the attention of parliament and acted upon to the end that there shall be no discrimination against anyone by reason of his inability to pay a fine imposed upon him.
Then I come to another recommendation, No. 57:
A complete revision of the criminal code should be undertaken at once.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to have the support of the- bon. minister, knowing of his wide experience in the administration of -criminal law. He realizes, as do all hon. members who at any time have been for the prosecution or the defence, that the criminal code of this country is in very many particulars obsolete and out of keeping with present-day conditions and, the science of penology as it is known to-day. Take for instance the law with respect to insanity. We rely on the McNaughton case of ninety years ago,

a judgment delivered! before there had been the great advances made in psychiatry and the study, of insanity. We still follow the old principle in determining the insanity of a person charged with a crime in spite of the 1 results of scientific knowledge of the subject acquired in the last fifteen or twenty years.
Then there is the question of jurisdiction, and the other question of punishment, the amount of imprisonment that should be imposed. All these are matters that, deserve the serious attention of parliament. I realize full well that it will take a long time to reform the criminal code,. A year and a half ago I said in this house that I was sure that hon. members belonging to the legab profession would be only too glad of an opportunity, with such other hon. members as would be. willing to assist in a committee, assisted by the permanent employees of the Department of Justice, and after hearing in committee psychiatrists, psychologists, authorities on mental diseases, and the, like, in evolving a criminal code in keeping with present-day conditions. What we have been doing over the years is that parliament has added a section, and subtracted from another of the code of 1891 or 1892, with the result that to-day the criminal code is somewhat of a hodgepodge,. That would be a very large job, but there is no more important work which could be undertaken by this parliament; and I know the minister is in agreement with that viewpoint, We could begin at the next session of parliament. There are many committees, but this is one committee on which 1 am sure many hon. members would like to work. We would be doing something to reform the criminal law, to bring it u,p to daite, to remove obsolete elements and to take advantage of the scientific investigations ' which during recent years have helped to indicate some of the origins of crime and the courses to be taken with a. view of securing reform, all of which, of course, is .entirely foreign to the set-up of the criminal code1 as it now exists.
Sections 70 to 74 of the recommendations recommend, in the matter of adult probation, the setting up of a probation system modeled upoq the system now in force in England, for both adults and young offenders, and that probation officers recruited from the ranks of trained social service workers should be appointed by the courts. I suggest that in institutions where there are juvenile offenders, there should be established personnel guidance officers. I suggest, too, a midway institution for youth which is neither a gaol nor a penitentiary, but an institution where there will be full training in trade, inculcation of high moral principles, and leadership rather than

Penitentiary Act
unnecessary coercion, with a view to changing the course of the lives of those young persons who have started on the road of crime.
Finally, I speak for the guards of these institutions. Some twelve years ago a change was made whereby guards for penal institutions were taken out of the operations of the Civil Service Act. Many of them are fearful that after years of service they will be removed and placed in a position where they will be denied pension benefits. I know full well that in recruiting men for the penal institutions there must be authority in the warden, with the right of appeal to the minister, to remove any officer who fails fully and efficiently to discharge his duty. But at the same time I feel that, first, there should be an increase in the salaries of guards in the penitentiaries to the level where we can secure better men than we have been able, in. the main, to recruit to-day. In our penitentiaries are many outstanding men who are giving their lives for low salaries because they are interested in the work. On the other hand some guards have taken the position because it is the. only available employment they can find at the moment. Let us recruit a higher standard of men who desire to do something to improve the lives of their fellow men. Let us have higher standards in the appointees to these institutions. Let us make it worth their while to secure positions in these institutions, and give the guards a higher degree of security than they now have. If parliament will act now, I am sure that five, six or seven years from now we shall be able to look back on the year 1945 and say that, having carried out the recommendations of the Archambault commission, we shall have succeeded in reducing the rate of increase that is apparent to-day among juvenile offenders, that we shall have caused a recession and that we shall have enabled many thousands of youngsters under the age of sixteen and other offenders between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one who have made a false step to start along the road to a new future, with a full appreciation of what their citizenship means to them, and a realization that the wray of crime does not pay.
Mr. JEAN -FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): The Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) and our colleagues have spoken like good Samaritans on a matter of general concern in this country. They deserve congratulations upon the high tone of their speeches; and while it is not wholly a pleasure, because the occasion is rather sad. it is a satisfaction to listen to a debate which is high above partisan politics.
. I do not well remember all that is in the report, but I read it when it was tabled, some years ago, and my first impression was that it was padded. One has only to look at the bioliography of the report to see the exaggeration of it, and to recognize that the report has been well padded in order to give the impression that the commissioners worked day and night on the matter. It is very easy to see that.
My first impression was that it was a bombastic report, intended rather to boost the commissioners than to help the inmates of penitentiaries; and my first observation to the then Minister of Justice was that, as a rule, when there is an investigating commission, it ends in an administrative commission on which all the investigators try to get good jobs. I make an exception for the father of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. MacdonneUl), who spoke very weld; also my hon. friends the members for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke) and Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker), who followed the fine example given by the Minister of Justice. I said to the then minister that I was concerned about one of the fellows who was on the first investigating commission; he wanted to be secretary of the other commission and the minister said in the house, "He will not be appointed." He told me in this house that no 'one who was on the investigating commission would be on the administrative commission. Another evening in the house, I remember, the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Lapointe, was tired. He came from my part of the country and I liked him very much. My hon. friend the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) made certain observations similar to those -we have heard to-night. The question was asked, why was the commission not appointed? I believe it was in 1941, the year of Mr. Lapointe's death. I took the liberty, sitting behind the minister, of opposing the proposal, and the commission was not appointed. I had good reasons.
We hear a great amount of talk about bureaucracy-too much bureaucracy. Nothing is done by this house. And the snowball is getting bigger and bigger. A new commission! Everyone on the other side of the house complains about commissions, everyone complains about secrecy, and yet here we shall have another commission which will not be responsible to' this house. It will be like the radio commission, like the Bank of Canada; it will be like many other commissions. We shall have a report, but we shall not have the same facilities for obtaining information about what is going on in the penitentiaries as we have now when the estimates are before the

Penitentiary Aci

house and when the minister has to answer questions put to him from every part of the house.
I have a very strong objection on the ground that there is no responsibility. The thing is illogical, because one day hon. gentlemen complain that there are too many expenditures, that we must curtail expenses, and the day after they are all for something of this kind; they want to increase expenditures. They say, 'Go to it; the motive is good." I am opposed to administrative commissions and it is a matter of principle with me. I do not say this for the purpose of obstructing. I only repeat what I said at a time when the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of Justice did not ' discharge the functions which he is now called upon to discharge. At that time those functions were discharged by one of my dearest friends, my Quebec leader, and he thought there was something in my. views.
Moreover, the commission will cure no evil because it will be irresponsible. The hon. member for Lake Centre knows the mess that existed in Prince Albert owing to the incompetence of the warden. He was never dismissed. It reminds me of suggestions that have been made by some civil engineers for the repairing of wharves where the wood is rotten. They say, "Let us put another piece of wood, another board, over the board that is rotten and it will support the structure." When the warden is rotten, what is the use of having a commission? It will be simply a matter of whitewashing. The commission will serve no purpose.
If my hon. friend is dissatisfied with the state of affairs when the commission is established, and if he wishes to get information, he will then receive the answer that it is confidential information. Then we shall have motions in the house for the production of papers, for the production of copies of correspondence, et cetera. Hon. members will be told that the information which they wish to obtain is confidential information, and they will rise and ask for a vote and will say that the government is unfair to them and that we have no more democracy in this country. Yet this is what they are running after. Well, they will get only what they deserve if we have a commission. I repeat, it is most illogical and absurd from their point of view.
Let my hon. friends have the cpurage to ask for the dismissal of all wardens who are incompetent. Let them insist, not theoretically but in practice, that each warden shall be a man with a kind heart and a firm hand, a man of experience, a ma-n who shall not be selected by the civil service commission. The right man will never be selected by the civil service

commission but by the responsible minister after he has asked his friends to select the very best man for the job. There is no heart in the civil service commission.
I would say that a warden should be selected by a committee of clergymen of all denominations who know the man himself, who know that he has a generous heart but will not be fooled by the inmates. At the present time the inmates are pictured as saints or at any rate, as fellows who are ready to change their lives. My fear is not so much of those who have been in penal institutions. I fear for the coming generation that goes to the movies, that reads sensational stories, those who have never been in gaol. They can do anything. It is not the creation of a penal commission that will reform them. Such a commission will have nothing to do with them. Are my friends [DOT] credulous enough to believe that all criminal offenders are those who have been already in penitentiaries or in gaols? There are some recidivists, of course, but. not all of them are. Look at the record. They are not all like Lauzon and Peltier and the other fellow with a strange name- Koresky.	[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: A1 Capone.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, he has his own record and his fingerprints must be in many places. I am talking about boys about whom everyone ought to be concerned. They are boys who belong sometimes to excellent families but who follow bad companions. Will this commission prevent such boys from going with bad companions? The commission will have nothing to do with them. It will have to deal with a small number of offenders, those who are recidivists. That is all.
Are my hon. friends ready to institute reform where it has to be made, right in the penitentiary? They are so naive, so credulous as to take it for granted that the establishment of a commission will be an improvement, and they are so sure of this that they will put the provincial gaols with the penitentiaries under the commission, when they do not know who will be appointed. Will the appointee be a third-rate lawyer running around here as a lobbyist through the corridors to get a job, or will he be a man of experience, wisdom and kindness? It will mean for him a life of sacrifice because he will have to look after those people. I know some wardens who come to Ottawa and who are as straight as sticks, going around thinking they are most important, that the world turns around them. The great Mr. So-and-so, the illustrious warden of such and such a place, who is infallible on the question of penal institutions. Everybody

Penitentiary Act
is naive enough to say how wonderful these men are, how disinterested; and when we ask for real reform nothing is done.
The first thing we have to do if we wish to bring about reform is to launch a campaign warning parents of the danger to which their children are exposed in these years. I do not say that those who complain of the present generation are right. Each generation hears the same story: "Well, in our time we were not so bad as the youth is now." Think of that, Mr. Speaker. With all the occasion that the youth of to-day have to do anything which is forbidden by the criminal code and by the other laws of the country, they are not doing so badly after all, and they deserve credit. Of course there is a criminal wave coming; it is only natural after a war when men have been led to kill each other, when human lives did not mean so much to the men, and when the object of those who had a rifle in their hands was to kill, and who made a sport of killing human beings as though they were killing game in the forest; it is only natural, but it could be much worse; and we may thank God that it is not any worse in this country.
I positively object to commissioes unless there is a reform, a long-needed reform', of those who are in contact with the criminals in those penal institutions. I remember very well

I do not think my hon. friend was here-when one of our lady colleagues received the humiliation of her life, here in this house, when she was making a saint out of a name, and the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Guthrie, took a paper from his pocket, read the report of that man who had committed many serious offences. It brought a great humiliation to our colleague who was sincere in advocating the rehabilitation of that man. Everybody remembers that. Those who were in the house-and my hon. friend the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) was one of them

remembers that. It is a most delicate matter; it is not a matter that can be dealt with by laws, commissions and regulations. It can be dealt with only by men -with their hearts in the right places. Not only the warden but the staff should be composed of men worthy of the warden, who should be an- exceptional man if we want some reform. If he is too good a man it will be an incitement to crime, because so many people will say that things are so well in the penitentiary that they must do something to go there as the unemployed sometimes break a window to go to gaol for shelter during the winter.
Of course opinions are free, but it is a dangerous game, and I warn the minister, who is an experienced man, to be very careful about all the intriguers who come to sell their skin, or I could put it otherwise, who come to ask for an appointment on that commission. I do not think the country has the means to establish a commission of that kind at this time, and I do not believe that commission would serve any good purpose. I would not be surprised if one of the commissioners, perhaps two or three, have been running as lobbyists in Montreal as well as in Ottawa to have the commission boosted, and then you would see them there.
I am a strong advocate of responsible government. So long as we have commissions we shall not have responsible government. There is no reason ini the world to establish *that commission. I do not say that to give the impression that I am grouching at the proposals which are made by ministers. They were made a long time ago, and I objected to them. I was sincere in objecting to them then, as I am now. I protest against it, and I believe that the members who favour it are just prejudiced or naive, and that the establishment of that commission will be another burden on the shoulders of the taxpayers of this country. I admit that my hon. friends who have spoken are sincere; they mean well, but there is no greater insult to a man than to say that he means well, he means well, he means well. That is no compliment. I do not say that to offend them, but I have had' a long experience in this house. I know the ins and outs of these things. I tell them to the house, and I think it is my duty to do so. I hope that they will think over what I have said as I have thought over what they themselves have said. I shall stop now because I want to listen to the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) before the sitting is over. He is a barrister of great experience, and I hope that he is not as prejudiced as our colleagues to whom we like very much to listen.


John Thomas Hackett: Would the hon. member permit one question before he site down


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


John Thomas Hackett: Did the hon. member understand that the 'hon. member for Mus-koka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) suggested the destruction, the tearing up of the statute naming the commission?


Jean-François Pouliot: Surely; I congratulate him for that, provided that he does not grab another statute to establish another commission.
47696-138J
Penitentiary Act


Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: 
Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am going to say something which I think is in disagreement with some of my colleagues, certainly something which is in disagreement with the hon. member for Kinctersley (Mr. Jaenicke). I begin by making this broad assertion, that in this House of Commons I know I speak on no subject with authority, but on this one I think I do speak with very considerable information. I have actively practised criminal law for thirty-seven years. Fourteen of those years were in the position of a prosecutor in Calgary. May I say to you people who live down here that it is an all-time job. Here you have a friend; he gets this court; the next one gets that court and you get the fees. I refused it on that basis and decided I must have a salary; otherwise I did not think I could discharge the duties of the crown. It will be remembered that we have no grand jury out there. Crown counsel take on that job for themselves and decide whether or not, after a preliminary hearing has been held, the man shall go on trial.
In this country from the beginning, punishment has been of a threefold character, or rather there are three phases of what we call punishment of prisoners who commit crimes. Number one is punitive. Number two is the reformation of the individual, and number three is that what happens might be a deterrent to others, that therefore society might be .protected. These are the three things all punishment seeks and that all penal institutions should1 endeavour to bring about. I am sorry to say that we in Canada confine ourselves to only two; that is, the punishment of the individual and the hope that his punishment may be a deterrent to others. It is rather a broad statement, but in this I agree very much with the hon. member for Kinders-ley, that in so far as reform in our institutions is concerned it is so negligible as to be not given a single thought. I have had instances of this kind, for example. A man may be given two years, or two years less one day; I have forgotten the distinction between a gaol and a penitentiary, but in any event I am only a day out-and I do not

mean from being an inmate. I have seen that man ask to be given another six months, and the magistrate or judge has obliged him. He asked for that because he had heard that in our penitentiaries he might learn a trade. With the exception of working in a laundry and perhaps making a boot or two, that is a complete fiction and absolute nonsense. Broadly speaking, we do not teach trades in our federal penitentiaries. So, as I say, of the three objectives we have in mind, certainly not more than two are in any sense carried out.	'
I am now going to say something in opposition to my great friend and seat-mate, to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) who sits in front of me and to the hon. member for Kindersley. I am anxious to put myself on record as saying that these people we get in penitentiaries are not all Sunday-school boys. There are bad men in this country. There is in this report a recommendation in connection with segregation, and so on, which in my judgment is the most important recommendation of all. I like this word "recidivist" or whatever it is; I used to call them repeaters in the simple place where I have lived for so long. I have handled the same men five or six times, and there was no object to be gained in their cases. And remember this, Mr. Speaker, that for the five or six times you get them, there are perhaps twenty times you do not. There are people in this world who are a menace to society, arid the sooner we get over these knitting group ideas that everyone we put in there has a halo around his head if we can but find it, the sooner I think we shall come to a more practical basis for dealing with these persons who commit crimes.
What happens in our courts to-day? A man comes up as a first offender, and what happens? Unless it be a very serious crime; he gets a suspended sentence. That is the invariable practice throughout the portion of the dominion that I know anything about; perhaps that is a very small section, but in any event it is large in area. Personally I am getting a. little fed up seeing twenty and twenty-one year old men, who can fight Germans and lick half a dozen old fellows like me, being constantly referred to in our courts as "this poor young boy who has gone wrong". He is not a poor young boy; he is a man. I got through university at nineteen. If anyone had called me . a kid I would have been ready to fight; so let us be a little bit practical about ages. The age of puberty is not twenty-one; it is a good deal less than that.

Penitentiary Act
Then what happens? A man is given this suspended sentence. He comes back again, and only then is he sent to an institution. Here is where I go along with hon. gentlemen to my left. I think the greatest criticism of all is that we have no place whatever to send them. It is easy to speak about segregating people in one institution, but those of us who know these places know it cannot be done in one place. My learned and hon. friend the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) spoke a moment ago about individuals. I agree with all that, and I am coming to it in a moment; but to our great shame in this country we have no such places. Let us not divide ourselves into provinces or districts when we speak of moral and human responsibilities; but in the whole of western Canada there is not one place where we can send a youngster who has gone wrong, who we feel should not be at liberty for a while, where he would receive some discipline, some training, some instruction, and some religious teaching, if you like; I am all for it. We simply have no place where young people like that may be sent. There is an institution in Portage la Prairie, about which I know something. I know' the deputy attorney general of Alberta, having made a personal inspection of that institution a few years ago, stopped our youngsters from being sent there. He would rather have them sent to gaol, because they w'ould be better off. Certainly there is no room for that type of institution in an enlightened country such as this. I agree with what the hon. member for Kin-dersley said about the Borstal system. I have been reading and studying about it for years, but if I remember correctly, it does not apply to first offenders! I think the Borstal system applies only after the first offence, which is all the more credit to that system, because it has done some really amazing things.
Let us concentrate a bit. I appreciate the position of the minister in view of the first recommendation in the conclusion of this report, which appears at page 362 as follows:
In making the recommendations contained in this report, your commissioners believe that the government should gradually embody the recommended principles in a well planned programme. It is of first and immediate importance that legislation should be enacted to make provision for a prison commission, and that the members of the commission should be appointed at once.
May I say that I know the words "at once" have no application to the present minister. The date on this report is in such small print I cannot read it, but I believe it was made about ten years ago.
Upon appointment the prison commission should proceed to form well-ordered plans. . . .
Then it refers to Wakefield, in England, as something of an example. I can see that the minister will say he is carrying out the report -perhaps just a little bit late-and following that first recommendation in the conclusion. But when three of the best men we could possibly find, Mr. Justice Archambault, Mr. Dick Craig of Winnipeg and Mr. McRuer, now Mr. Justice McRuer of Toronto, have done all this, why in the world has another commission to find out whether or not they were right? Perhaps they formed their own little knitting group, or something of that sort, because many of their recommendations are of the sob-sister variety; they are nothing more than an expression of pious platitudes, and so on. But they have some real things in this report. We know the present minister is a humanitarian of the first water; so why should he not let us deal with this matter now as far as our jurisdiction goes? That is something beyond me.
I thought it was eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps my eyes deceive me.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


James Horace King: With the consent of the
house.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am awfully sorry because I know that some of the younger men on the other side should be in bed before this; I am sure the older men can take it. I have just a word or two to say in conclusion. Let us in this country stop whittling at this thing. Let us cut down the old tree if it is necessary, but let us have something worth while.. Do not think for a moment that I am out of sympathy with the care, the nurture, the training and the teaching of which the hon. member for Kin-dersley spoke so eloquently. It is so much easier and so much more inexpensive to save someone who is going wrong than it is to pull him back up again after he has gone a long way down the hill. We all know that in our daily lives.
Therefore I simply make an appeal to hon. members. It may be that this is the start. I hate the idea of another commission. I disagree with the hon. member for Temiscouata. Even though he may not be able to get his handcuffs, I still think the business should be handled by some kind of commission, but not a commission of inquiry. I am sure that the Minister of Justice with his many duties has neither the time nor the inclination to take over a job like that.
I agree that most of the men we have operating our penitentiaries are men with army experience. That is my experience. I do not speak disrespectfully of them as individuals,
Penitentiary Act

but I know the hon. member was quite right when he said that discipline in a penitentiary or gaol should be of secondary consideration, that the man in charge should be a humanitarian. Do hon. members know that in Sing Sing in New York state an I.Q. test was taken and the inmates were one and a half per cent above the guards? That is a strange fact, but it is a fact.. What can we expect of guards to whom we pay $97.50 a month and then send them home in the evening to try to support their families. The only difference now between the guards and the inmates so far as I can see is that the guards are allowed to go home at night. That is just about the only difference we have in our penal institutions.
Let us not make two bites of this cherry. Let us do a job of work, not for those men who are gone and who must be segregated but for those who are coming up in this country. They can be saved. It is the smarties who are committing their first crime but who ultimately will become major criminals. They are not as dumb as most people believe they are. Let us leave out all these psychiatrists. There is only one thing I am sure of in connection with a trial for insanity; everybody is sure .the psychiatrist is crazy. In criminal law in this Dominion of Canada you do not need a psychiatrist to succeed with a defence of insanity. As one of our old English judges well said, a man is crazy when his friends think he is. That is much more solid reasoning in my judgment than having all these boys with these new degrees. It only began in the last war, this young science or art. We do not need these men with new degrees, with the long hair and staring eyes.
Motion agreed ho and bill read the second time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With the consent of the house, I should like to more :
That when the house adjourns on Friday, November 16, 1945, it stand adjourned until Monday, November 19. 1945, at 4.3*0 o'clock in [DOT]the afternoon, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in standing order 2.
This is because of the visit of our distinguished visitor, the Prime Minister of Great Britain.
May I just make a suggestion to the house for consideration overnight. After the conference of the various parties in the house the suggestion was made that once the estimates of the three defence services were approved, the measure might be adopted on the definite understanding that the rights and privileges of all hon. members should be reserved and preserved and that particular

items under discussion and on which discussion might be desired would be open for the fullest debate on the corresponding items in the civil estimates. That is only a suggestion to the house, for the house to decide at the proper time.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
Friday, November 16, 1945.