1946-06-21

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is not often I do. I wish to call Your Honour's attention to what happened last night, in order to keep the record straight and right. I moved an amendment, which I had put in writing, to the resolution that was then before the chair. Standing order 47 says:
All motions shall be in writing, and seconded, before being debated or put from the Chair.
My motion was in writing and was seconded by the hon. member for High Park (Mr. McMaster). I know that my writing is not as good at it was a few days ago, but I hold it in my hand now, and it is clear enough to read. My only point is this: I wish to assert the rights and privileges of a member of parliament in moving an amendment. My amendment was to the effect that the readjustment should not take effect until after the next census in 1951 and then only after a plebiscite or referendum. My amendment was ruled out of order by Your Honour, in these words:
I am sorry, but I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member. The rules state that a motion or amendment should be presented to the Chair in such a way that it can be read by the Speaker.
I submit that there is no such regulation. Standing order 47 says that the motion shall be in writing, and my motion was in writing, and was seconded, and I read it aloud to the house. Your Honour further said:
The rules are quite definite that a motion should be presented to the Chair with the name of the mover and the name of the seconder and presented in such a way that the Chair can read it to the house. Unfortunately I cannot do that in this case.
There is no such provision in our standing orders at all. It was a very simple matter to read my amendment. I had not time to have it typed. I believe that ninety-nine per cent of the members here could read it.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think it is my duty to answer the hon. member. I understand perfectly well that it is the duty of the Speaker to do everything possible to help hon. members of this house, particularly when they have a motion to introduce. But I understand also that it is the duty of hon. members, if they have a motion, and especially if the motion is important, to draft it in such a way that the Speaker can present it to the house.
[Mr. Cokhvell.l


Thomas Langton Church: May I call Your Honour's attention to the fact that if the Speaker cannot read it, then under the standing order it should be read by the Clerk of the House and duly recorded in Votes and Proceedings, which it was not.


James Horace King: Order. I cannot permit any debate.



LABOUR CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
seamen's STRIKE-GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF SHIPPING COMPANIES AS OF JUNE 24
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, since it is now apparently impossible to expect the inland shipping owners and their striking crews, members of the Canadian seamen's union, to get together and effect a settlement which will stop this serious tie-up on our great lakes transportation route, the government has decided to take over the operations of 29 of the shipping companies affected, as of 9 a.m., Monday, June 24.
Captain E. S. Brand, O.B.E., R.C.N., of Ottawa, has been appointed controller of the operations of these companies. Mr. Justice S. E. Richards of Winnipeg, member of the Manitoba Court of Appeals, has been appointed an industrial disputes inquiry commissioner to conciliate the matters at issue between the two parties while the controller is in charge.
These steps have been taken by the government under order in council P.C. 2556, dated June 20, and passed under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act. I now table a copy of the order.
I would like to say that the order has been passed on the joint recommendation of myself and my colleague, the Minister of Transport.
I want the house to know that I would have been happier if the action taken had been unnecessary but this dispute has lasted beyond all reason and is causing serious dislocation in the movement of highly essential products, grain, coal, oil and other commodities.
I would far rather see all such disputes settled by representatives of both sides sitting down together and ironing out their differences in a fair and equitable way. Since the strike began on May 24, all the conciliation machinery of the Department of Labour-and it is adequate machinery-has been utilized to bring the parties into agreement. The attitude of both sides has been the stumbling block and [DOT] that is why the government has taken the action which I have just announced.
I now table the following documents:

Labour Conditions
1.	Copy of the commission appointing the Hon. Mr. Justice S. E. Richards;
2.	Copy of a communication addressed to me by the national war labour board providing for the immediate introduction of the eight-hour day, three-watch system, on vessels operating on the great lakes and St. Lawrence waterways.
We hope that the operators and the employees will give 100 per cent cooperation, and we hope also that through the good offices of the commissioner a firm agreement will soon be consummated between the disputing parties so that the government control can be lifted.
The task of negotiating the terms of the contracts to take the place of the agreement which has existed heretofore between many of the companies and their employees is not going to be an easy one. However, Mr. Justice S. E. Richards, if given reasonable cooperation by the parties, will, I am sure, obtain results which will be satisfactory.
Under the order in council which I have just tabled, control is also taken of oil tankers operated by the oil companies. Most of these companies are already working on an eight-hour day by direction of the national war labour board. However, since these vessels in consequence of the strike have not been operating, it was deemed advisable in the public interest to bring them under the control order.
I would like to say a few words about the qualifications of Captain Brand for the position of controller. He holds his rank because of service in the imperial royal navy, and during the war period has been on loan to the Royal Canadian Navy with the temporary rank of captain.
Throughout the war he has been serving as naval intelligence officer and director of the trade division. For the last year he has been one of the key officers on the naval headquarters staff, and has served since July, 1942, as a member of the Canadian shipping board.
He has been selected as controller because of his long experience in naval and navigation matters and because of his administrative capacity and good judgment.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that one of the companies involved in the dispute, the Upper Lakes and St. Lawrence Transportation Company Limited, operating one of the largest services on the lakes, consisting of twenty-seven vessels, has accepted the strike settlement formula which appears on pages 2632 and 2633 of Hansard, and pursuant to clause 1 thereof has to-day signed a supplementary memorandum of understanding with the Canadian seamen's union which provides for the practical application of the eight-hour day,
three-w!atch system. This company's vessels are now being manned and will commence to sail to-morrow.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of his statement a few moments ago. Perhaps I did not understand him correctly. In appointing the controller is he taking over only the ships which transport the commodities he mentions -coal, grain and oil-or are all commodities included?


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend would like to have a copy of the order I will see that he gets one. It is all-inclusive, with the exception of passenger transport, and I have been assured by the men's organization that there will be no interference.



WAR EXPENDITURES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. Cockeram be substituted for that of Mr. Jackman on the special committee on war expenditures and economies.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 196, to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to La Societe des Artisans Canadiens-Frangais.-Mr. Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont).

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I wish to ask the leader of the government a question. I understand that the special committee on the revision of standing orders has presented its final report. When will this matter come up for consideration? This is the fifty-sixth day of the session. The chairman of the committee is not here.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the chairman of the committee will have to give my hon. friend the information he is asking for. I cannot give him any answer at the moment.

Personal Explanation-Mr. Bridges



PERSONAL EXPLANATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a personal explanation. In the five o'clock edition of yesterday's Ottawa Journal there appears a news item, as a Canadian press dispatch from Fredericton, on page 6 of the same under the heading of "Beaverbrook Accepts Chancellorship of N.B. University". The final paragraph reads as follows:
A few months ago, visiting a military hospital in England with fisheries minister H. F. G. Bridges, he told the nurse who escorted him that he only had time to talk with the New Brunswickers. The nurse, an Ontario girl, remarked that Ontario is the ''heart of Canada." "Madam," said His Lordship, "the heart is where the head is-and the head is in New Brunswick."
I was not Minister of Fisheries when I visited that hospital in England, as that was in February, 1945. I was then an officer in the Canadian army and I met my friend and benefactor of twenty years ago-Lord Beaverbrook-as we happened to be visiting the same hospital at the same time. What actually occurred on that occasion was this: he told the nursing sister that he wanted to visit the boys from New Brunswick or the maritime provinces. To which she replied: "My, you people from the maritimes are clannish. I come from Ontario and we regard Ontario as the heart of Canada". To which he quickly answered: "The heart was never the head, madam." Then as we walked along-and I do not believe the nursing sister heard this-he said to me: "Bridges, I hope she doesn't find out I was born in Ontario".
In fairness to Lord Beaverbrook and myself, I feel I should make this correction.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Big-gar):: Mr. Speaker, I received a telegram a few minutes ago on which I wish to base a question: I have not been able to give notice of it to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), and I apologize for that. The telegram is from Mr. George Burt, of the United automobile workers, Windsor, drawing attention to the strike in the Chrysler plant, intimating that it is likely to spread, and asking what steps are being taken to endeavour to

bring an end to this strike, which will interfere with the production of farm machinery and automobiles.


Humphrey Mitchell: That dispute is being
handled by the conciliation department of the Ontario government.



CANADA SAVINGS BONDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce to the house the decision of the government with respect to peacetime facilities for the investment of general public savings in government securities.
As the house is aware, the active life of the national war finance committee ended after the ninth victory loan. It was considered that this organization had completed its great work of meeting financial requirements for the prosecution of the war, and should not be asked to carry on in peace time.
It is clear, however, that the activities of the national war finance committee helped many people to save to an extent that no one had thought possible. Many Canadians have built up substantial personal reserves that they might never expect to acquire by other means. This is particularly true of savings made by regular deductions from pay. At the time I announced the termination of the national war finance committee, I mentioned that the government had received many suggestions that the savings programme be continued in a form adapted to peace time. I said that this maG ter would be given careful study.
I am now able to say that this study has been completed and that it fully supports the proposal to continue some sort of government savings facilities suitable to the times. The government has, therefore, decided to make facilities available, and has created the Canada savings bond for this purpose. The Canada savings bond is designed to replace both the victory bond1 and the war savings certificate as the government security in which personal savings may conveniently be invested. At the time of the introduction of the new security, the sale of war savings certificates and stamps will be discontinued.
The main purpose which influenced the government to extend facilities for investment of savings and to create the Canada savings bond was to meet existing public demand. The government is also fully aware of the value of this kind of saving and investment to the

Canada Savings Bonds
welfare of this country. There is no doubt that the nation will benefit in the long run if the ordinary citizen is able to accumulate a reasonable reserve of personal savings. These savings help to meet family emergencies, to make higher education possible for children, to build homes and to acquire many things that contribute to a comfortable, satisfying and happy life. It is clear that a majority of citizens save most readily through a government investment programme of some kind. This has been the experience of other countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States. In the United States steps have been taken to continue government savings facilities, and in the United Kingdom such facilities have been maintained since the war of 1914-1918.
I believe that hon. members will agree that it is important to any country that great numbers of citizens should continue to acquire and to hold a tangible stake in their nation.
Turning now to the nature of the new security, Canada savings bonds will be issued in denominations of $50, $100, $500, and $1,000, with annual interest coupons attached. The exact rate of interest and the maturity date of these bonds cannot yet be announced, but I can say that the terms will be more favourable than those existing for comparable investments at the time of issue. For this reason, a limit will be placed on the amount of Canada savings bonds anyone can hold, and they will be sold only to individuals. The bonds will be registered in the name of the owner. This registration, in addition to providing control of purchases in the name of one holder up to the limit decided upon, will render service to the holder in protecting him against loss of his investment through theft or destruction of his bond. The Canada savings bond will be redeemable at 100 per cent plus interest at any branch of any chartered bank in Canada upon presentation of the bond by the registered owner. Identification of the person presenting it as the owner will, of course, be necessary.
The government will have the Canada savings bond available for sale this fall in time to permit continuance of payroll deduction plans now in effect. It is understood that employees will feel free to adjust the amounts of these deductions to their peacetime needs. The Canada savings bond will also be available to the general public at all branches of chartered banks, investment dealers, trust companies, and some other financial institutions. There will be no organized personal sales coverage of prospective buyers, except that which I have mentioned as applicable to payroll groups. Every appropriate means will be used to inform the general public of the 63260-171
availability of the Canada savings bond. Banks and financial organizations will undertake to draw their advantages to the attention of their clients.
It is hardly necessary for me to emphasize to the house and to the general public that the procedure I have outlined is very different from that followed in the wartime years. This will not be another "victory loan". It would not be practicable, nor indeed desirable, to build up the great organization of salesmen which would be needed for a house to house canvass. The government will take all necessary steps to acquaint the public with the characteristics and merits of the new Canada savings bond, but the initiative in purchasing these bonds will lie, for the most part, with the people themselves. Sales of these bonds are not expected to cover the government's total borrowing requirements. A substantial part of these requirements will be met by public offerings of the usual type at appropriate times. It remains true, nevertheless, that we hope for widespread acceptance of the new security. The success of the programme is highly important despite the different terms in which that success will be written. This new programme for saving must operate on a broad and embracing national basis to achieve maximum benefits to individuals and to the country. I have no doubt that Canadians will see in the Canada savings bond a desirable successor to the victory bond, a suitable means to store up personal reserves. But it is also important that Canadians see in themselves the successors to the victory bond salesmen; for they will be responsible in large part for initiative in making their own purchases, and for the maintenance of the habit of saving so generally and beneficially established in the war years.
I should also point out to employees that their employer is acting solely in their interest in offering the opportunity for deductions from their pay. Although the government has attempted to lighten the work, the administration of payroll deduction plans still involves employers in expense and responsibility.
While we are not trying to re-create the national war finance committee, I have no doubt that members of that organization and the many public-spirited associations and groups who aided in its work will be interested in the new savings programme. I feel sure they will see in this plan a continuation of the work they so ably performed, and they will also appreciate the reasons why the war-time organization cannot be recalled to duty.
In the past I have had many occasions to urge Canadians to support victory loans and war savings campaigns for patriotic reasons linked with the war effort. While the new

Canada Savi?igs Bonds

programme does not call for just this type of appeal, I feel that it is appropriate for me to emphasize to the one-time members of the national war finance organization, and indeed to all Canadians, the advantages of personal thrift. To the extent that former members of the national war finance organization agree that the new programme will bring benefits, I am confident that they will lend moral support to this new national endeavour by example, by word of mouth, and by other means within their sphere of influence. To the extent that Canadians in general agree, they will find simple means of expression in their own personal investment in Canada savings bonds.


Major James William Coldwell: I notice that the lowest denomination is $50. Is nothing to be done to encourage small savings up to $5 and $10, in view of the discontinuance of savings certificates?


James Lorimer Ilsley: To a substantial extent these will be paid for by payroll deductions, which will naturally be in small amounts.


Major James William Coldwell: I thought this was to be a voluntary saving.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is voluntary, but the
method by which much of the money will be obtained will be by payroll deductions voluntarily allowed.


Major James William Coldwell: It is to be voluntary deduction from the payroll of the individual.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. That is clear from the statement I made, and the lowest denomination will be $50.


Mr. LOW:: Will these bonds be assignable?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; they must be registered.


Major James William Coldwell: Principal and interest are guaranteed. There will be no fluctuation in the value of the bonds?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. There is no fluctuation in value.


Major James William Coldwell: That is a good feature.



JAPANESE IN CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Humphrey Mitchell: Hon. members will be interested in knowing that a cablegram was received by the Department of Labour to-day informing us that the first party of Japanese repatriates from Canada has landed in Japan. As I previously stated, the number in this first party was 668.


The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
96. Departmental administration, $199,970.
Thomas Langton Church: I wish to refer to the administration of the Department of Justice and a few matters which I have had before the house for some time. The first matter to which I should like to refer is judicial reform which I have raised in the house for many years, along with parliamentary reforms, constitutional reform, cabinet reform, and law reform. Under the item, departmental administration, an opportunity is provided hon. members to refer to the administration of the department. For years I have urged in the house that the time has come for us to revise the criminal code which was passed in 1905 for the first time. Amendments have been added each year to this code, and some of them have become obsolete.
In the second place I have urged on the minister and on his two predecessors the appointment of a legal committee such as they have in some of the legislatures. We had evidence of the need of a legal committee in the past few weeks when we were considering the British North America Act and other private and public and legal bills. The Ontario legislature has a legal committee, and I believe that province was the first to establish one. The other provinces have, I believe, now followed suit.
Many bills are coming before us. A private bill was introduced this afternoon and it had for its purpose the changing of the constitution and structure of a private society. A private bill such as that is a legal bill, and it should go to a committee.
Another thing we require is a consolidation of our statutes. You have to take the original criminal code and go through thirty-two or thirty-four years to seek amendments which are made every session.
We are now in the sixty-eighth day of the session and we have yet to learn whether the Department of Justice proposes to bring down this session any statutory amendments to the criminal code. Many recommendations have been made to the minister by the chief constables' association, judges, municipalities and law societies regarding law and order in the country, which is difficult to obtain at the present time. The chief constables' association, the Canadian Bar Association and many other public bodies have made representations, and something should be done about it.

Supply-Justice
In the office of the Minister of Justice we have an obliging and able minister, and I sometimes feel sorry for him in the heavy work he has. Of what does the Department of Justice consist? In the first place it has all the powers of the attorney general of England. It has the power of the solicitor general of England; it has the duties of the home secretary over penal institutions. The Minister of Justice is also the Attorney General for Canada, and the department has the powers of the lord chancellor to appoint judges and to look into the conduct of their office. That is an important matter.
Recently a solicitor general was appointed in Canada to aid the minister in his work. Some of his work has reference to the War Measures Act and other war acts which were passed during the war. In the old days, as I understood it, the solicitor general had charge of penal institutions and the prerogative of pardon, which is a most important one.
I may say that there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction in recent years with regard to some of those who have been chosen as judges by this department. I should like to find out whether the Canadian Bar Association has made any recommendations, and what these recommendations are. In the old country the bar associations do make recommendations to the lord chancellor.
I should like to refer to the county court bench. In Toronto we used to have as many county court cases, civil and criminal, as the rest of the province put together. In the old days we had three county court judges; Judge Morson, who tried division court cases, and who did as much work as any five or six judges. He had a junior judge, the late Judge Morgan, and as senior county judge, Judge McDougall, who was succeeded by two able men, Judge Winchester and Judge Coatsworth. We have an able and efficient senior judge in York county to-day, His Honour Judge Parker. He is one of the finest county court judges we have. But there is dissatisfaction with some appointments. We are going all over Ontario and bringing into the county of York judges who know little or nothing about the district over which they preside. That is a wrong principle. We brought in some who were not in the legal profession for years. One was a town clerk and another acted in a similar capacity in another county. They were appointed junior judges of York county and brought in to try judicial cases. It should not happen; that principle should be obsolete.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer, namely, two bills which I have before the house. As the committee knows, I 63260-171}
consented to allow my bills having to do with the Judges Act and motor car accidents to stand until such time as progress was made on other important bills. I was promised that I would have time to make some reference to them on the minister's estimates. The bill to-amend the Judges Act states that judges should not serve as commissioners. A few of the judges who have been appointed have yet to hear a case in the law courts, or at least very few. The bill also states that they should not be appointed to travel all over to try commission cases which are political. In the bill I referred to the fact that congestion has taken place in the law courts as a result of judges being appointed as commissioners. In one paragraph I said:
The frequency, of recent years, with which judges are drafted for all kinds of such work impairs the efficient administration of justice and causes congestion in the law courts, and, as they are largely only fact-finding commissions when appointed, they duplicate the efficient powers and functions of parliament, of the committees thereof, and of the many outside boards of recent innovation in war work, and furthermore they are a costly adjunct to good parliamentary government of the people, by the people and for the people, cause delays and interfere with parliament's right to immediate solution of social and economic problems of urgency to good government, thus a system of "judicial commission government" is slowly being built up in Canada.
The second amendment was that courts of last resort must be bound by the decision of the judicial committee of the privy council. That is a good proviso. I referred to it last night. The judicial committee of the privy council is one court where the litigant can get substantial justice. We never would have had the cheap light and power movement in Ontario but for that great judicial institution and its decisions in 1912 and 1914.
Then there is another bill to which I should like to make a short reference, in regard to the terrible loss of life through motor car accidents. We see this parliament without five minutes to devote to the appalling loss of life which abuse of the motor car is causing in this country. After all is said and done, science has won the admiration of the world in the last seventy-five years. Why? Because scientists base their conclusions on facts, unlike the politicians, who argue from theories, opinions and all that kind of thing. With the motor car, as with every other invention, its use is one thing and its abuse is another. I had a return brought down in the house this year giving the number of lives lost through these road and other accidents. I need not take time to read that return, but every highway in the province has run red. This is one of Canada's greatest scandals. In the
Supply-Justice

province of Ontario the government spent nearly $65,000 in the prosecution of a young man for murder on Toronto island; yet in this house we talk about secondary matters and we have not five minutes to devote to these casualties on our highways, whose number almost equals the number killed and wounded in the great war.
Then in addition we have the drowning accidents, of which there were fourteen on the front pages of the newspapers last week end. From 1938 to 1944 we had 149,000 people injured in traffic accidents, and last year some 9,028 were killed by motor cars. Over the same number of years the drowning fatalities numbered 5,097. Did you ever hear of such loss of life? Fatal accidents at level crossings numbered 727 last year, and some 2,264 were injured at level crossings. The number of persons who died from fires in homes was 1,221, while 22,000 people were killed in other accidents during the war. During the war we had a great opportunity to do something about the great loss of life in Canada through automobile accidents, but we failed to take any action. In my opinion, whenever a person is killed in a motor car accident there should be an inquiry before the county judge. At present there is a coroner's inquest, which sometimes does a little good, but it should be the duty of the county court to inquire into the death of every person killed in a highway accident in each county. That would be one way of trying to check these accidents.
In the bill I introduced this session I proposed an amendment in connection with the practice of withdrawing cases from the jury in connection with motor car accidents, which is done by many of our judges. As a result the accused person almost always escapes punishment. In my bill I proposed several amendments to bring the law up to date, following the law of New York state, which provides suitable penalties for those who drive while under the influence of alcohol, for instance. The bill also dealt with careless driving, culpable negligence and hit and run drivers. Why, we almost present a gold watch and illuminated address to anyone who kills a person on the highway and runs away. I think the most cowardly person in Canada is the man who leaves an injured person-man, woman, or little child-lying on the pavement, races away from the danger and does nothing about it. That is the most contemptible form of murder. I suggested extra and heavy penalties for these people, without the option of a fine. If the minister is considering amendments to the criminal code this year I hope he will also consider all the amendments I have suggested in this bill.

I also suggested an amendment dealing with persons who cause death in a criminally culpable and negligent way. Even though the person killed should be fifteen or twenty per cent to blame, the driver of the car still would be eighty to eighty-five per cent to blame, and he should not be allowed to escape punishment. A penalty should be provided, as is done in the state of New York. Another amendment provided that a jury should decide in these motor car cases. The explanatory note states:
On the trial with a jury of persons who cause death or serious injury, it is desirable that the functions of the jury should not be curtailed or abolished. There has been much criticism of many cases of gross negligence having been taken from the jury. The jury are required to take the law to be what the judge says it is, and, owing to the many cases withdrawn by order of the judge, trial by jury in those cases is negatived, and there are so many loopholes that many persons guilty of gross negligence get off. The increased accidents require that the law should be brought up to date to meet the changing conditions, while preserving also the liberty of the subject.
The last matter dealt with in my proposed bill was the right of women to serve on juries. In the last election fifty-one per cent of the voters were women, and I proposed the following amendment:
On the trial of any female person by a jury under any provision of this act, one-third of the jurors chosen to try the issue shall be female persons duly qualified on the same basis as male jurors.
Unfortunately there is not the public opinion there should be in regard to this great national disaster, the loss of life in motor car and other fatal accidents, to which I have referred. We do not have the courage as a house to stop it. As I said here the other day, we have lost most of our functions. The decay of parliament and the decline of the House of Commons of late years are most appalling to the average ratepayer in this country. The press has now become the organ of public opinion; it has assumed that title, and the assumption is rendered legitimate by the decay of our Canadian parliamentary institutions. The power of the press is based upon the ruins of real representation. We spent days and days on a judicial bill which was passed last evening. Just look at the importance of that matter. It should have gone to a legal committee to be examined in detail. The periodical press has become the rival of the House of Commons, but it will remain a successful rival only as long as the house does not represent the people, and not one day longer. A few years ago we had in the House of Commons the great men I referred to last evening, and many others. When I think of

Supply-Justice
those who have occupied these seats in the da3rs since confederation I am filled with a spirit of deep humility; when I look at our parliament as it is constituted to-day, and see its impotence and incompetence to recover its rights, privileges and prerogatives, from various irresponsible bodies, I wonder if it will ever become a free parliament again, which it is not to-day. As I have said on previous occasions, the time is long past when we should do in the way of parliamentary, constitutional cabinet, and law reform what was done in Britain twenty years ago. We are that many years behind the old country in all these reforms.
For a moment I should like to refer to the cost of the administration of justice. This is a very important item in the estimates, and I should like to call attention to one or two other matters. One is the pay of the judges. Are we getting value for the money expended? Judges should be paid more liberal salaries, if we are to get the right class of men to take office. As hon. members know, on many occasions judges who travel the circuits are heavily burdened. We have twelve high court judges on circuit in Ontario, but some are sick, and the others are heavily loaded with work. There should be a proper increase in the pay of judges, so that the minister may have the satisfaction of securing the best possible men for this work. I have been arguing that for many years.
I should like to present another matter on behalf of the chief constables association. I refer to the damage done by air rifles. In that connection I would refer to one lady who was travelling on a Bathurst street car in Toronto. A reckless boy, who had one of these air rifles-I have seen hundreds of them on the streets in the past-fired the rifle, broke the window of the street car, and put out one of the lady's eyes. Yet nothing is done about it-although this happened in 1941. Surely the Department of Justice should bring in an amendment to the criminal code preventing the manufacture of these air rifles. I hope something will be done aiong that line.
I believe the time has now come when the government of Canada should reimburse the municipalities for a great portion of the cost of the administration of justice. The policing of Toronto at the present time costs several millions of dollars, and one reason for the expense is that they are loaded up with work which arises from legislation of the federal parliament to enforce federal law. The taxpayers must pay the bill, from taxation on real estate. During the war, and until the present time, the police force of that city has
had to enforce hundreds of federal orders in council. Hon. members are aware that since confederation the enforcement of federal law has been under the jurisdiction of the attorneys general of the provinces. That authority is redistributed among the various police forces in the provinces. The result is that heavy work is placed on those municipalities, and I believe the parliament of Canada should pay for it. If the federal authority wants this work done, it should pay; and the law should be enforced accordingly. The enforcement of these federal orders in council takes up a great portion of the time of municipal police forces.	-
To-day sixty per cent of the men on police forces are engaged in traffic work, with the result that there is not sufficient time to travel beats throughout the various wards of our cities. We do not have the protection we should have, and the protection of property and civil rights within the provinces suffers.
I would call the attention of the minister also to the fact that a high court judge recently told a poor woman to go out and buy a hat if she wished to give evidence in court. The hats I have seen women -wearing have been so small that I have been reminded of the paper cartons in which marmalade is served in our restaurant. I called the attention of the hon. member for Temiscouata to that fact-he is not in his seat to-day-and he said that the paper cartons were too large for the ladies to wear in court rooms.
We have heard a complaint about the air force officer who did not come to a salute with his hat on. I think the time has come when the judges in our supreme court might take direction from the high court of parliament, where the very estimable lady member, who is now sitting in the chamber, suggested that the ladies in the gallery need not wear their hats-and they look the better for it. I thank her for what she did. If she can only remain here long enough to convince some of the judges on the benches to consider their cases-


Major James William Coldwell: She will be.


Thomas Langton Church: -rather than a lot of minor troubles, it will be much better for the administration of justice.
Then, we know that grand juries should have the power to visit the various institutions. The late Chief Justice Meredith, in one of his charges to a grand' jury, referred to the fact that, rightly or wrongly, these federal institutions were managed by crown officers, and that it was the duty of the juries to visit and to inspecl them. Under the act members of parliament are listed as visitors. I wonder how many ministers or private
Supply-Justice

members have ever paid visits to institutions; yet it was one of the cardinal principles of magna eharta that the people should take a large part in the administration of justice.
The time has come when we should have some real law reform. I have urged a consolidation of the criminal code, and that a legal committee should be set up so as to save the time of the house many days and weeks in the discussion of various legal bills. There are many other matters to which I might refer at this time, but no doubt an opportunity will be given later on.
I appreciate what the present Minister of Justice has done, and commend these suggestions to his consideration. Surely when we can waste $60,000 to $70,000 in the trial of one person charged with murder, we should have some new method of checking up on these motor disasters on the highways, particularly at level crossings, as well as drownings, and fires in old houses, and with respect to such other matters I have placed before the house, but the consideration of which has been delayed' because of the war.


Mr. HACKETT:: How many judges, whose appointments are made by the federal government, have been engaged in duties outside their statutory duties in the past year? If we could have the figures for the last three or four years, they would lend point to what I wish to say.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I am not in a position to give precise information on the point, because frequently requests are made to judges by provincial authorities to engage in some activities which are not within their normal judicial duties, and concerning which no information comes to the Department of Justice. The hon. member will realize, of course, that the Minister of Justice is not an inspector of the courts of justice in the provinces.
The federal government makes the appointment of judges, pays their salaries, and presumes they are carrying on their duties in a proper manner until information is received officially to the contrary. During the period of war there have been many occasions on which it was found necessary to ask judges to perform duties which would not normally fall within their judicial activities. That seems :o be inevitable. At times there are certain :hings which cannot be dealt with through the ordinary processes of the courts, but which must be considered by persons having judicial temperament and such detachment from ordinary business, professional or political pursuits as is required to inspire confidence in those who happen to be interested in the issues dealt with.
I think there are at present about fifteen judges who are doing some work that is outside the performance of- their ordinary duties. Every hon. member knows that there are two from the Supreme Court of Canada who have been for a considerable time now, much longer than I thought at the outset it would require, engaged on the royal commission investigating the leakage of information from the departments of the Canadian government. There is one of the judges of the court of king's bench in Quebec who is absent in Japan as a member of the international court trying war crimes against the personnel of the allied armies. Two judges of the high court, one of Nova Scotia and one of Alberta, have been for some time investigating the coal situation. The Minister of Labour announced to the house to-day that Mr. Justice Richards of the court of appeal of Manitoba had been invited and had agreed to try to bring together the employers and the employees engaged in the operation of inland shipping. Mr. Chief Justice Sloan has just succeeded in bringing together the operators and their employees in the forest industries of British Columbia, and I may add that he seems to be particularly fitted to do that work because he had been doing for some time previously investigational work in forestry for the government of British Columbia. A judge of the high court of Nova Scotia presided for quite a long time over the national war labour board but has now returned to his judicial duties. A judge of the appeal division of the court of Alberta acted as chairman of the labour relations board but has since returned to his judicial duties.
During the administration of the selective service regulations there were-I would not venture to say how many, but several judges who were acting as chairman of the selective service boards. That was not a normal part of their functions but it was the kind of thing that seemed necessary to have done by a member of the judiciary.
I think it would be fair to say that of the total number of judges administering justice in Canada during the war period and perhaps even at the present time there would be as many as fifteen who were doing other things than their ordinary judicial work.


John Thomas Hackett: Mr. Chairman, I am not of those who believe that a rule may never suffer any exception, but I am speaking of a practice of long standing which has become peculiarly disturbing by the frequency of its recurrence, that of appointing judges to the performance of tasks outside their judicial office. In its less repugnant forms, judges have been appointed to commissions, to re-

Supply-Justice
draft codes, to consolidate and revise statutes, and perform other tasks for which their training and sometimes their leisure make them apt candidates. To the extent that these tasks are paid for, they are subversive of the principle of independence which is the bedrock of our whole judicial system. If a judge is to receive remuneration in excess of his statutory compensation, which has been horribly inadequate for generations, he is beholden to the body paying him, be it the political party in power or be it a labour union or employer who commands his services. But if the practice in the form to which I have just alluded is reprehensible, it becomes more objectionable when judges undertake tasks higher pigmented by politics.
It is impolitic for a practising barrister to say anything which might be construed as criticism of the bench. It is most unfortunate that stern necessity imposes on me the duty of pointing out the dangers to the greatest of our institutions inherent in this practice. I do not accuse the government in power of being the sole offender, but circumstances have made it the most frequent and the most recent offender. Whenever it has had a difficult problem to solve, whenever it is confronted with a perplexity, it has pulled members of the bench down into the dust of the political arena in quest of a solution acceptable because of the high authority and so far unimpeached integrity of the bench.
I say with sorrow that the reputation for impartiality, dignity and honour enjoyed by the bench has been exposed to criticism by this practice. All who believe in the law, who depend upon its fearless administration, and admit that the people at large must have complete faith in the integrity of the judiciary, must oppose the continuance of this practice.
If it is necessary to refer labour disputes to the judiciary, let us set up a "labour court" and name a judge for that purpose. At the present time, in the clubs, in the market place, wherever men meet and discuss, one hears a judge classified as "favourable to labour," another as "favourable to the interests," another as "weak and not knowing exactly which side he is on."
My language may seem strong. As head of the bar of Montreal I made a mild protest a year ago last May. As a member of parliament I condemned this practice in the house less than a year ago. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) dealt with it at length nearly two years ago. Still the practice continues. It is because I believe in the rule of law, because the rule of law cannot be
maintained unless the bench be free from all taint or suspicion of partiality, that I speak as I do. Either we have too many judges, or they aie neglecting their judicial duties, if they can devote as much time as they are at present devoting to work beyond their statutory duties. In many parts of the country judicial work lags, litigants suffer, while judges are engaged in tasks foreign to their function.
I take from the English Law Times remarks of Lord Esher when responding to a toast to the bench. His words are exceedingly appropriate to the present abuse. Speaking of a certain judge, he said:
Their education-
Referring to the bench.
-and training made them impartial and determined to do what was right in any question that came before them. This, indeed, was so well known and recognized, and when the judges ot England acted within the scope of their ordinary duty, nobody ever attempted to suggest that they were not impartial. At the present time, however. they knew that one of the judges had been asked to go beyond the scope of his ordinary duty, and he, for one, was surprised and sorry that the judge in question had consented to do so. The result was inevitable. That judge had been fiercely accused already of partiality or ot want of desire to do justice.
There is no excuse for the government to appoint judges to work beyond their judicial function. It should sternly deny them the right of undertaking such duties for provincial governments or other bodies.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that when the promise of the Minister of Justice has been carried out and the judges are finally given adequate salaries, they will be able to decline invitations which lower the repute of their high ministry and which tend to undermine public confidence in the bench.
This practice has now become one of almost daily occurrence. I understand why the government refers these questions to judges. It is because the people of our country still have confidence in the bench. But if these problems which are beyond the judicial function are to be submitted to the judiciary, we are taking the hazard of losing one of those institutions upon which we rely and one of the institutions which has brought the greatest glory to our country-the rule of law and the unimpeachable integrity of the bench. I therefore hope that the minister will exercise his power and great influence to discourage this practice. There are men learned in the law who are not on the bench, men eminently suited for the tasks which are so frequently being allotted to judges. Let us have recourse to them. Let
Supply-Justice

us preserve that great heritage, that great boon, the integrity of the Canadian bench.


Mr. KNOWLES:: 
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Would it have to be the consent of all the provinces?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In my opinion it would have to be the consent of all the provinces that would be affected thereby. I consider that they have been given jurisdiction, sovereign powers, which they get not from this parliament but from the imperial parliament, and it is their jurisdiction; so we cannot take it from them without their consent, any more than if we wanted to take from a legislature of a state of the American union some of its powers.


John George Diefenbaker: Every province
would be in that position.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Every province would be in that position, in my view. As to the second question-was anything done towards endeavouring to secure the consent of all the provincial governments to an amendment of that kind-let me say to the hon. member that during one of the adjournments of the dominion-provincial conferences, prior to January-some considerable time, in fact, before the December meeting-I had written to all the attorneys general asking them to give some consideration in advance to the subject so that they might be in a position to discuss it when we met afterwards, if there was opportunity for doing so. When they came together in Ottawa I was told by one of the attorneys general, who happens to be at the same time the premier of his province, not to bring the question up, that he would have to take an attitude that would make it absolutely useless to pursue it, and that it might be the occasion for embarrassment with regard to other things about which agreement could perhaps be secured. And the reason given was that he expected that at this session a bill would be introduced to amend the Judges Act, providing more in the form, not

Supply-Justice

of a larger proportion, but of more dollars in the matter of pensions. It was his opinion that there were several who were waiting until that happened to offer their resignations, and that we would see what would come about then. If the situation thereafter still appeared to be as embarrassing as it was at the present time he would perhaps change his views. In the meantime he would have to take such a firm attitude that it would not lead us to a solution and it might be harmful in other matters that were to be discussed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I take it that the minister's ideas are stymied by the great powers that sit in provincial-
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not know that I would say that. Perhaps stymied is all right, because it may be possible to get over the obstacle.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: And hole out.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: And hole out. I know from information I have had from various sources that there is substance in the suggestion made by that gentleman that there were apt to be some resignations just as soon as the scale of salaries and pensions had become definite. Even though they were not perfectly satisfied with the scale, if they knew that there was not going to be any more available within any proximate period, there were several who would be apt to take what there was available. However, I intend- though the bill to amend the Judges Act will not become operative in all its terms until the first of the new year-to have the provisions dealing with pensions operate as soon as they are sanctioned by His Excellency, so that we shall see what the result will be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the minister leaves that subject I should like to ask one other question. First, may I say that we over here are enjoying the comments the minister is making about the judiciary, particularly with regard to their materialistic interest. I trust he was not casting any reflections. In view of what the minister has now stated, has any consideration been given to providing for retirement at least of those who are appointed judges in the future? I can see the argument with respect to those already ou the bench, but surely with respect to judges now being appointed there should be some understanding on this point.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, I do not think there is any difference. The life tenure does not result from the situation when they were appointed. It is the view of the law officers of the department that under the British North America Act we cannot make any other

kind of appointment to the provincial courts; that whatever appointments we make are life appointments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Unless the minister does something under section 100 dealing with salaries, pensions and so forth.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: As the hon. member himself recognizes, that would be an indirect way of doing something which parliament is not entitled to do directly, and its validity would be questionable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Keep on trying to get over the stymie.
Mr. ST. LALTRENT: The hon. member suggested that he or some others might be enjoying the statement that there was a materialistic interest in these hon. gentlemen. It must not be forgotten that those to whom it would apply have been a good many years on the bench with salaries which a good many find to have been low for the duties they have to perform, and paying taxation at rates which a good many have found to be extremely high. And it might not be materialistic to have them say: Well, it is only proper that I should wait and see what kind of provision is to be made at an early day.
In his second question, I understand that the hon. member was not dealing with the aspect of the divorce question which has been brought to the attention of the department in a great many letters, namely, the enlarging of the grounds under which divorce could be granted. As to that I have had to reply that those who take their law from the bible have to take it as it is. Those who admit that there is a divine law about it disagree as to what the interpretation of the law is. Roman Catholics say that it does not provide for divorce a vinculo matrimonii on any ground, but merely for separation without right of remarriage. Others say that it does justify a divorce a vinculo matrimonii and right of remarriage on the ground of adultery. But no one who takes his law from the bible says that there can be a divorce a vinculo matrimonii for anything else but adultery. Now, to enlarge the ground means either to deny the existence of a divine law or to say that the human law can override the divine law. In either event you get no ne plus ultra left. If you get away from the existence of a divine law you have no stymie beyond which you cannot go. It then becomes just a matter of determining by human law where you should stop. Though there are deplorable individual cases, there are still a great many who believe that the indissolubilitj' of marriage is of such public value that its public value outweighs the

Supply-Justice
inconvenience to which a certain number of individuals are put and the suffering which is put upon them, probably through no fault of their own. But there do happen things which are most regrettable, and which cannot be adequately dealt with.
As to the other matter-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister understands I was not discussing that general point at all, at the present time.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; but I thought it might be just as well, while dealing with the question, to give here indirectly an answer to these representations which have been made about the extension of the grounds for divorce.


John George Diefenbaker: Who made the
representations?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Individuals.


John George Diefenbaker: The Canadian Bar Association?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; individuals submitting individual cases of great hardship. Perhaps there have been associations as well endorsing the representations and transmitting statements of cases of individual hardship.
With respect to the other point, the situation at the present time is that for those who are domiciled in Quebec there is no divorce as of right. When a divorce is obtained it is by virtue of a special act which does not recognize divorce as an institution, but deals with a special case. There is widespread objection to the recognition of divorce as an institution or as a right one can request from a court if he is within the conditions laid down. For that reason there would be very much opposition to the establishment of a code of divorce which would make divorce a matter of right to be granted by a court of justice under a rule of law. I have suggested to others interested, who have been discussing the procedure which is followed and which is not edifying in connection with these large numbers of divorce bills that are dealt with by parliament, that of course one solution to get away from the inconvenience or distastefulness of such practice would be to refuse to grant any divorces. They do not have to be granted. No one has a right to one. It is just a matter of whether or not a special act will be passed to deal with a special petition of one who asks for something which is not provided for by law.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On that point may I ask the minister if these special acts of divorce are not passed under section 91, subsection (26) of the British North America Act, which 63260-1721
would seem to recognize the institution of divorce as far as the powers of parliament are concerned.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The heading in question under section 91 gives jurisdiction to parliament in that matter, but does not go beyond giving it jurisdiction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The heading is "Marriage
and Divorce."
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. There is no doubt the word "divorce" is something that has a connotation understood by human beings. The British North America Act does not say there shall be any divorce but says the matter of divorce is one that can be dealt with by the Canadian parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And we deal with it one hundred and fifty times a year.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: And parliament deals with it. One solution to eliminate these things which are considered distasteful and so on would be to refuse to deal with them. There are some who believe that there should be divorces in some cases which they would look upon as proper cases, and that it would not be exercising the jurisdiction or discharging the responsibility that the having of the jurisdiction places upon parliament to refuse to deal with any. I have suggested to hon. members of parliament concerned with this that there might be some other solution that w'ould not set up divorce as a matter of right but would largely relieve parliament of the inconvenient features of the practice now going on. The courts of the province of Quebec pronounce decrees of separation for adultery. If parliament were to say, "We will not consider an application unless it is supported by a decree of separation based upon a finding of adultery," then the committee of parliament would not have to go beyond looking at the documentary evidence. Anyone who wanted to ask parliament to grant a divorce first would have to go to the courts and get a decree of separation and a finding that there had been adultery, and there would be no need of any investigation, consisting of the hearing of witnesses, by a committee of the senate.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Is that decree granted on other grounds, or just adultery?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It can be granted on other grounds.
If that were to become the attitude I think the legislature of the province of Quebec probablj7 would be invited to amend the Quebec law7 which provides that if the
Supply-Justice

wife is found guilty of adultery a decree of separation is a matter of right, but that if it is the husband who is guilty of adultery it is a matter of right only if he has kept his mistress in the common domicile. Though that may have been looked upon as a proper rule in days gone by, I think the feeling of the public now is that in this matter there should be equality of treatment for both sexes. If it became known that parliament was going to refuse to deal with applications for divorce unless there was from the courts a decree of separation, founded upon adultery, I think the legislature would be apt to amend its law to make that kind of decree available to the wife as well as to the husband, if adultery were established.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This idea appeals to me as having merit, in the sense that it gets rid of the farce we have here, and also in the sense that it ties in with their provincial laws and thus keeps the people of Quebec in the picture. Since that is the case, has any consideration been given to a procedure to bring about that result? Does it require an act of parliament, or a pronouncement by the government, or what?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have made the suggestion, and I hope it is under consideration. I have offered the suggestion to members of both houses of parliament interested in the question, and I have been told that they were going to give it consideration, that it was a suggestion which did seem to have some merit. I have also made the suggestion to confreres of mine of the bar of my province that if something like that were done probably it would be necessary for the Quebec legislature to amend the code and put both sexes on the same footing in that regard. I have found no one to frown upon the suggestion, but so far it is still under consideration. I must say I am not promoting anything that will facilitate divorce; it did not appear to me that making suggestions of that kind would be promoting anything that would facilitate divorces. The courts of Quebec would then have the responsibility of securing, for these separations, proper evidence, genuine evidence, evidence of real grounds, and not evidence of things prepared for the purpose of getting the result.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I rather like the minister's idea. I think it is the first suggestion we have heard in this connection that has real merit.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The legislature of Quebec has provided that the attorney general may intervene in any case for a judgment of nullity of marriage, because there had been

quite a large number of marriages declared null by courts of justice in Quebec, and public opinion had become disturbed. So the Quebec legislature provided that the attorney general might intervene in all such cases, and I understand that since this provision was made he has been instructing counsel so to intervene.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Similar to a king's proctor, you mean?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In the role of a king's proctor. The same thing could be done, and would be the responsibility of the Quebec authorities, with respect to these decrees of separation, which would become an essential requirement for getting a special act of divorce from the dominion parliament. So there the Quebec authorities could assume and discharge their responsibility of seeing that no decrees of separation were granted on trivial grounds or trumped up grounds.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Matters relating to children, if that procedure were adopted, would still go back to the province?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If that procedure were adopted matters relating to property, to families, to the care of children, to alimony and so on all would have been disposed of in the decree of separation. I believe that with proper care taken to see that only genuine cases were dealt with by the courts it would afford relief to parliament, and probably diminish the number of applications which come before parliament. And even those which come before parliament could then be dealt with on documentary evidence, without the requirement of a special investigating committee to hear oral testimony.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They would not be bothered with finding facts at all. They would take them right from the decree.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They would take the facts from the judicial findings in the decree, and then do whatever would appear to parliament to be the right thing to do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says that his proposal does not deal with some broad considerations connected with divorce; but I think it is one of the most commendable suggestions yet made-perhaps even better than my own-for getting rid of the present situation. I for one hope it will be actively considered.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It arose out of my first suggestion that parliament could get rid of some of its troubles by refusing to deal with applications for divorces. I appreciate some said that would not be discharging the

Supply-Justice
responsibility that is upon us, because we are the ones who have the jurisdiction. I then said if you feel that you should discharge the responsibility, say that you will not attempt to discharge it until there is a judicial finding beforehand that there are what you consider proper grounds.


Mr. McIVOR:: Mr. Chairman, there are three points I should like to discuss. An announcement has been made respecting the appointment of a commissioner to supervise the penitentiaries. Those of us who are intensely interested in the care of those who make mistakes now have hope that the findings of the commission which were made public about seven years ago will now be put into practice. I commend the minister for the appointment of the commissioner; it shows that we are going to get action.
When the minister's estimates were before the committee last year he said he commended a practice whereby, when a man has served a certain length of time in a penitentiary, it was better not to enforce his serving the complete time. He approved letting the prisoner out a little early, so that the prisoner would feel somewhat more sympathetically inclined toward the country of his birth or adoption. At that time I mentioned the cases of two men. I can tell the minister to-day that those two men are out, and that they are behaving as respectable citizens. They are making good, and looking after their families. To-day I shall give him the names of two others whom I hope to have out in the near future. I have just as much confidence in these two men, although they did bad things.
I believe our penitentiaries have been improving in the teaching of trades to the prisoners. But it is not enough to have a trade, as the minister well knows. I have in .mind a young man who was confined in Stony Mountain penitentiary who, upon his release, was in a position to earn eighty cents an hour as a carpenter. I was able to get him a job. He told his employer where he had been, where he had learned his trade, and the situation seemed hopeful. However, in the fall of the year the young man got the urge to make more money. He seemed to think he was not making it fast enough, with the result that he got into more trouble, and he is back in the penitentiary. The minister will agree with me that a trade is not enough to make a man.
In passing, let me pay tribute to the chaplain service in the penitentiaries. They are just as important as any other officials in those institutions. But a young man must have some outlook in life greater than a call for money, or a call for the satisfaction of his
lower nature. He must see Him who alone can help him to live right. If he does that, his trade will help him.
May I commend the minister for something concerning which he has been criticized, namely the way he handled the espionage incident. I should have been disappointed had the minister, when appointing the commission, told it how it was to act. The minister was not responsible for the manner in which the men were arrested or detained. That was the way the commission thought best to have it done.
When the Prime Minister appoints a cabinet minister, he does not tell that minister in detail how he must act. The man is accepted, and put on his own resources. That is why we have so many ministers who think for themselves and act honestly without supervision by the Prime Minister. They are to be commended for this.
There are organizations in Canada which condemn the government for the way in which the espionage affair was handled, and for the unveiling of that dastardly thing which, if left unhindered, would have undermined the best in our country, namely the loyalty of our citizens. While perhaps I might have liked to see them treated in another way, I believe the minister is to be commended for what he did.
Others have been arrested without their crimes being made known to them. I have known men who were arrested without being told what their crimes had been. Perhaps they were not clear enough in the head to understand at the time of their arrest; but they found out later on.
These are things for which I commend the minister. I approve his treatment of prisoners who have served long terms in the penitentiaries. I still take the stand that if a man is a criminal he should be in; but when he has ceased to be a criminal, the sooner he is out the better for him and all concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure the introduction by the last hon. member of the subject of espionage did not please the minister too well, because I have no doubt he wishes to have his estimates passed. That is one subject we discussed on another occasion, and I trust too much praise will not be given the government for its handling of the espionage affair. If that were so, it would be necessary to discuss the matter somewhat further.
My remarks to-day will have reference to the judiciary. During the last two years how many appointments have been made of members of the bar over sixty years of age, and over sixty-five years of age? I am informed that a gentleman has been appointed to a
Supply-Justice


Humphrey Mitchell: No, it is not.


John George Diefenbaker: However, take as an example the Supreme Court of Canada. I know the difficulties which the minister has had to secure appointees to that court which above all must be representative of the most outstanding members of the bar, men of good judgment, men of ability; above all, men with the desire and the ideal of justice. Yet it is impossible to get men to accept appointments. Our own judges in western Canada would refuse to be appointed because they would have to change from the surroundings of many years and come to Ottawa, and all they would receive additional to what they are receiving as judges in the western provinces would be approximately $75 a month.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They cannot afford it.


John George Diefenbaker: As the minister says, they just cannot afford to do that. It may be argued that the old age pension should be increased. I support that. At the same time I believe that all the material things of life are meaningless unless in the courts of this land men are assured that those who administer justice will so with ability and dispatch and certainty and with honour to this country.
While on the subject of judicial responsibility and improvement of standards of the judiciary, may I repeat what I have said before, when possibly it was not supported, that we should use our judges for judicial purposes and not misuse their services for commission purposes. During the war there was some excuse for doing so. I know what a royal commission is, and I know how it operates when you put judges on a commission to deal with conflicting viewpoints wherein
Supply-Justice

partisan politics enters. No matter what a judge does in a case like that as a commissioner, though his integrity may not be impugned there is nevertheless the suggestion that past political considerations enter into decisions he makes as a royal commissioner. It is impossible to take a man from the bench and place him in the cockpit of political considerations and conditions as a royal commissioner without in some way reducing him to a position where the suggestion of the possibility of bias applies. What a position one gets into when judges find themselves in that situation! Only in the last few days in the supreme court of another country an argument has started, arising out of political bias, which threatens to undermine the respect for justice held by people in that country. I suggest that we should, first and foremost, take the stand that judges shall not be used on commissions. I notice that to-day the Minister of Labour announced the appointment of Mr. Justice Richards, who has been an exceptionally fine conciliator, to conciliate as between the claims of labour and capital.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are the best qualified, are they not?


Humphrey Mitchell: Whom would you get?


John George Diefenbaker: I am not so sure that they are the best qualified. They are qualified by law. But whether they are the best qualified or not, that judge, while dealing with these matters-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Both law and equity.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, it may be a matter of law and equity, but there are other considerations, economic considerations, which detract from the sanctity that should surround the members of the bench.
I am not alone in that viewpoint. One of the best articles I have read on the matter appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press some months ago. The editorial says this:
The . . . principle . . . that judges shall be entirely independent of the executive government and of the legislature . . . has been seriously transgressed since the beginning of the war with unfortunate effects on the whole machinery of justice. Throughout Canada, under the federal and provincial governments, judges have been compelled to undertake the functions of executive government and, in many eases, the virtual function of lawmaking.
I point out the case of this espionage investigation. Two judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, both estimable men, Mr. Justice Taschereau and Mr. Justice Kellock, are put on a royal commission. When appeals are heard from the cases arising from that investigation the final court of appeal will be the court on which these two gentle-

men sit, although they will not be sitting on the case in question. That is a serious situation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says it is not? Let me point this out-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They do not have to sit.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I said they do not sit. But they belong to the Supreme Court of Canada. Certainly they will not sit.


Mr. BROOKS:: Their services are lost, too.


John George Diefenbaker: Those who will be sitting will be those members of the court who in other cases will be sitting with those two judges.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What they did was absolutely right. I know that.


John George Diefenbaker: In 1936 Lord
Sankey said it was wrong in Great Britain. He said this is the most dangerous principle that can be followed. My hon. friend says it is all right. But let me point out this. In 1943 Mr. Justice Taschereau, in the Supreme Court of Canada, decided that no man, when suspected, could be questioned by a police officer, unless he was warned that he did not need to give evidence.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: To save the country from traitors.


John George Diefenbaker: That was the decision in 1943. In 1946 the same judge who gave that judgment in 1943 sits on a royal commission and directs persons who are suspected that they must give evidence, and they are not entitled to the protection of the court, that protection which every court in this land grants.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They were traitors.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not entering into the propriety of the matter, but I am pointing out that these are considerations that lower the judiciary in the public mind. When you appoint judges to the bench you expect those judges to be on the bench. We have in Saskatchewan one who was appointed in 1938; he will always be able to say that he has never been reversed on appeal, for the reason that he has never sat on a case, and yet he has remained a judge of that court since 1938. These, I say, are things that cause the public to condemn the judiciary. These are things that cause many people to believe that judges are being paid enough to-day. That is why I place such reliance in the Minister of Justice. He did much,

Supply-Justice
during his term as president of the Canadian Bar Association, to press for the elevation of the standard of our judiciary, and I am willing to say that in the appointments he has made which have come to my notice, he has entirely lively up to the principles that he espoused when he was president.
I believe there are still things that can be improved, and that is why 1 suggest that a declaration be made by the minister that judges are to be judges and to be used as judges and not as commissioners, and that men who are appointed judges shall not act in any other capacity, leaving the bench. Think of our position in Saskatchewan. We have a four-man bench because one of our judges has never sat. Not so long ago an appeal was dismissed on an equal division of the court. These things do not elevate justice. I should like to know what the situation is in regard to this judge to whom I have referred. I should like to know whether or not he will come back to the bench or, if he leaves, what pension he will be entitled to.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not wish to take up too much time because I should like to get some money voted, but there are some questions which I must answer. As to the last one, if the hon. member would allow that to remain unanswered until I have my bill before the house to amend the Judges Act, he will find at that time that a satisfactory answer is forthcoming.


John George Diefenbaker: He will be off the bench?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member will find that provision is being made to take care of situations of that kind, because it is intended to provide for meeting the pension hiatus that might otherwise arise. The hon. gentleman asked .me how many appointments have been made of members of the bar over sixty-five years of age. I do not think there has been any appointment and I would be disappointed to find that there had been, because I make it a point to inquire closely about the age of those who are recommended. If the hon. member will give me privately what information he has I shall endeavour to have it verified, and if it should prove that Jupiter nodded I shall try to have arrangements made to ensure that he will not do so again, because it is not something I would wish to do.
The hon. member inquired as to the position of the reference or appeal to the privy council with respect to the right of parliament to deal with appeals to that body. That case had been inscribed for the session that is nowin progress and everyone felt it was going to
be proceeded with, but the counsel who had been retained to argue the case in the supreme court had to go to hospital for an operation-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Geoffrion?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Aime Geoffrion. He went to the hospital for an operation, and I considered the question whether the deputy minister could go over himself to conduct the hearing. It was found, however, that he could not go; and I felt that, having already waited so long, it would be worth while waiting a few months longer. If at the next term it is found that Mr. Geoffrion will not be able to attend and the deputy minister cannot go over, we shall find someone else to take the case. We felt, .however, that it was the sort of case that should be argued by one known to the public as experienced before the privy council, so that whatever happened the public would be satisfied that adequate argument had been submitted.
The hon. gentlemen referred to the reviewing of sentences of courts-martial and the fact that the Minister of Justice was the custodian of the king's conscience. Under king's regulations he is not the custodian of the king's conscience with respect to sentences of courts-martial-


John George Diefenbaker: I realize that.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: -and the information to which the hon. member referred will have to be obtained from the Minister of National Defence.
As to the next question, it is intended to provide at this session for the restoration of the twelve-man jury in Saskatchewan, and as a matter of fact there are two draft bills in preparation, one to amend the criminal code, containing that provision, and another which will have nothing but that provision in the event of its being decided that there will not be time to deal with the more extended bill making a certain number of other amendments to the code.


John George Diefenbaker: Would it be too forward to ask the minister what the anticipated changes will be in the criminal code?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would not care to say at this time what will be in the bill, because there have been a very large number of suggestions and there are some which are certainly not to be brought forward at this session. There is still a lot of legislation to come before parliament, and the officers of the department are determining which are the things that are most urgent. The matter of providing for a twelve-man jury in Saskatchewan is the first item, and if we have the feeling that parliament would have time to
Supply-Justice

deal with anything else in respect of the criminal code we shall have that. If we have the feeling that there is time to get consideration from parliament for other matters we shall determine which are the ones that appear to be most urgent and the number will depend upon how much time parliament could be asked to devote to a consideration of them.
I share with the hon. member the feeling that it is desirable that judges should devote all their time to the discharge of the ordinary functions of their offices; but there are occasions, even in peace time, when the public interest requires that they be asked to perform some other function for the state, and I hope that these occasions will be much less frequent than they were during the war. During war time there were a great many things which could not be dealt with under the ordinary processes of the courts. They required to be dealt with by gentlemen of the same temperament, learning, standing, ability and repute as those who preside over the courts. I hope there will be fewer such matters in the future.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the
minister tell me something about juries in Alberta? I refer particularly to the question of challenging. Last fall I defended a young fellow who was charged with murder. I was quite successful in that he was convicted. In Alberta I was allowed to exercise six challenges, while the crown had, in effect, forty or fifty. They have so many challenges and so many stand-asides, as we call them, that it runs to the figure of forty-six. Incidentally, during the vacation I appealed the verdict and a new trial was ordered. My brother, who must be quite a lawyer, defended the same chap and he was acquitted, so that ends that part of the story.
But in that case, as in all other cases, we Used our six challenges. It means that the crown just looks over the remainder of the panel and takes anyone he wishes. Do not think for a moment I am saying that the prosecutor there, a great lawyer, and a personal friend of mine, Mr. Blanchard, is the type of man who would unduly take advantage of the position. But I think it a terrible comment on the administration of justice that a man charged with murder in Alberta has six challenges and the crown has forty odd. It means they select whomsoever they want. That is just what it comes down to. I raised the point with the minister last fall and I know that he has made some inquiries out there. I know what they did. They circulated a questionnaire to the benchers of the law society of whom I am not one, but my partner

is and I saw it, and two or three telephoned me. The point is this, they were not men who knew anything about criminal law or had any experience whatever with it. They thought perhaps it might be all right. I do not suppose the attorney general wants to alter it. I am not so keen on the twelve-man jury. We have had a six-man jury ever since we have had juries, and to my mind a six-man jury works just as well, no matter which side you are on, as does a twelve-man jury. That is only my own view, but it is pretty generally held out there.
I suggest to the minister that when a person is accused, without anybody being consulted, of the most serious of all crimes, namely murder, in Alberta, the law should put him in the same position as he would be in, in any other part of Canada. Out there we are standing alone in that miserable position. Every other province permits twenty challenges. It seems to me that this parliament should not wait longer to rectify what is even more of an anomaly and, in my judgment, a perpetuation of a state of affairs which is unjustified from any point of view.
The minister is looking at the book, and I think he will find that it goes back to the old Northwest Territories Act. That is where it originated. It was fixed up for Saskatchewan. They were put in the same position as the other provinces. But for some reason we were left out on the end of the limb where we have remained ever since. It can be changed by the addition of three or four words. Just put us in the same position as all the other people in Canada. Alberta is made the exception in one of these sections. I think all hon. members will agree that it is not right to have a man charged in one province and have him put in an inferior position to that in which he would be if he were charged across the border in Saskatchewan or British Columbia. The minister will remember that I mentioned the matter. I know he has made inquiries in the area because benchers showed me letters which they had received.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I fully agree with the hon. member for Calgary West that the provisions for the trial of a man charged with murder should be the same in all the provinces.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the minister do something about the matter?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I shall endeavour to have parliament do something about it at this session.


Mr. ADAMSON:: I should like to discuss briefly a matter which has caused considerable discussion in the press and is the subject of

Supply-Justice
live controversy between several of the provincial attorneys general and various charitable, fraternal and church organizations throughout Canada. I refer to the game known as bingo which, I understand, is considered a gambling practice under the criminal code, and the playing of it is therefore an indictable offence. I raise this question because there is considerable confusion in the minds of many Canadians, particularly in Ontario, as to whether the pastime is gambling or not. I am informed that the game may be played occasionally without fear of the law, but if it is regularly played it then becomes an offence under the criminal code. Not being a lawyer, this would seem to me a peculiar situation. If the playing of the game in public is gambling if you do it repeatedly, surely it is gambling if you do it at all, or if you can play bingo on regular occasions without risking fine or incarceration, surely you should be able to play it at stated and given intervals without fear. To those of us who are not learned in the law it is like saying that you may rob a bank or you may murder a man: if you do it occasionally, that is all right, but if you make a practice of it you will get into trouble with the police.
I bring this question before the committee at the present time because in my opinion the playing of bingo is, despite the occasional professional operator who may run a racket, a useful and happy form of social contact. I say this because bingo cannot really be considered as gambling, in that the amount wagered in each game is small, seldom going over twenty-five cents. In many cases for an entry fee of one dollar or less a whole evening's entertainment may be had. The outlay to the individual cannot be great and is normally less than that of most commercial entertainments. It is certainly less than the amount expended even for a few bottles of beer. Therefore I feel that the playing of bingo is not apt to cause a financial strain on anybody or work an injustice or hardship on the family.
I believe practically every hon. member in the committee knows what the game is. I have no intention of describing it or its advantages. It is extremely simple. You are not likely to be involved above your original stake. I think it has a great advantage over bridge, in that there are no postmortems after the game is over. You do not accuse your partner of not having led the ace or returned your suit. It has another great advantage. During the war the game of bingo was used successfully by a large number of fraternal and charitable institutions as a method of raising money for charity. I think practically every legion, many churches and a great number of other societies
used to make it a practice of having a regular night playing at this pastime. There has been an anomaly created as to whether this is a gambling practice or not. In my opinion, the banning of the game has brought about some hardships and, if continued, will reduce the funds available for charitable purposes at a time when reestablishment and readjustment make a personal or local helping hand so much more important than the cold relief of federal or provincial charity. I realize that it is not the function of the Minister of Justice to interpret the law, but I feel that it would be extremely helpful if he could make some statement on this matter at this time.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	That is a matter
upon which I would feel obliged to refrain from making any definite statement. Representations have come to the department from a large number of church organizations to the effect that the law should be made even more restrictive and that such exceptions as are now recognized should be removed. On the other hand, a large number have made representations to the effect that these bingo games were susceptible of being used and were being used for worthy purposes. There are bingo games that have been organized in such a way as to make it difficult to assert they were not gambling, and this is a matter about which the opinion of honest people sharing opposing views will have to crystallize before I could take the responsibility of saying to parliament, "This is the right thing to do." I am not sufficiently informed to be able to recommend anything to parliament in that regard at the present time. I have had representations which, if they applied to all games of bingo, would show them to be terrible things. I have had representations which, if they could be applied to all games of bingo, would show they were worthy, charitable undertakings which should be encouraged. I know the representations on both sides were made sincerely, by respectable Canadian citizens, and I am not in a position to recommend anything to parliament in that connection at this session.


Mr. GREEN:: Is there any reason why
amendments to the criminal code are always brought in late in the session? Ever since I have been a member I think that has been the practice, but it seems unfortunate, because there is not the same opportunity to consider them as there would be if they were brought in earlier. I suggest that they are of great importance and should be brought in each year quite early in the session so that both the house and the people would have an opportunity to give them consideration.
Supply-Justice

Mr. ST. LAURENT: The reason given me for having bills to amend the criminal code prepared and brought down at a late date was that we did not want to have two bills in the same session and that frequently, while the session was in progress, recommendations came to the department which were worthy of consideration and which at times resulted in suggested amendments. It had been found by experience that it was better, to wait until the session was well advanced before crystallizing the bill to amend the criminal code, because it was undesirable to have more than one such bill at any one session.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any particular
objection to having two amendments to the criminal code during one session? Surely they are absorbed into the code itself anyway. As the minister has pointed out this afternoon, the result of this practice may be that this session many amendments to the criminal ?ode will not be brought forward.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sure there is other legislation quite as important and urgent as those amendments that will be left aside and will not receive consideration at this session. We have been sitting here pretty consistently; we have been dealing with many matters, but there are many more to come. I am not suggesting that members of parliament take too much time with them, but there is a limit to what can be done during a session at the pace this house sets in dealing with the matters submitted to it.


Major James William Coldwell: Does the hon. gentleman think we are near the end of the session?


Howard Charles Green: I hope so. Will the minister give some consideration to the present practice? In my opinion, the result has been that the same time is not spent on these criminal code amendments that would be spent if they were brought in earlier in the session. The public do not have the same opportunity to know what is going on, and this is detrimental to the administration of the criminal law of the country.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I can only repeat that I have been told a bill to amend the criminal code will be considered if there is time for it, but there are other matters that have to be considered. Desirable though these amendments may be, we can get along without them if we have not time to consider them, while there are other things we cannot get along without. That is still the situation this year. There are certain things the government feels it is necessary to place before parliament, that it is absolutely essential to put before parliament. The criminal code is the poor

relation and gets consideration if there is time for it, time which does not have to be devoted to something else.


Howard Charles Green: I was not referring so much to this session, because it is already quite late in the session. I hope. I was referring to future years. Will the minister give consideration to the wisdom of bringing in the amendments to the criminal code earlier in the session, in the years that lie ahead?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Certainly I would be only too delighted to have the bills coming from my department placed before the house at the earliest possible moment and given first reading so that they could be distributed, then allowing some time to elapse before having them considered, because I think that would be helpful and would assist in disposing of them more rapidly when they come to be considered by the house.
Mr. GREEN. That is very true.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Inasmuch as amendments to the criminal code are being considered, I wish to refer to what has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Broadview'. I do not think anyone can exaggerate the seriousness of the situation writh respect to motorcar killings. Our law is such now

I mean our judge-made law-that in instructing a jury the judge must tell them that the negligence must be so gross as to shock the public conscience, and so on. I am quite certain the minister realizes what I am talking about, though I have forgotten the exact w'ords. This matter can be taken care of in only one way. I have no statistics on the matter, but I prosecuted motorcar killings over a period of years. I do not think I w'as a bad prosecutor, but out of twenty cases I think I had about one conviction. The answer is just this, that to-day nearly every man who sits on a jury owns a motorcar. He promptly says to himself "Oh, well. I might be in that position myself some day", with th'e result that they are gentle in matters of this kind.
I am going to make a practical suggestion which I believe will help a good deal, and that is that the word "manslaughter" be eliminated from the criminal code. I say the word has no meaning. We have homicides of various kinds-and "homicide" is a big enough word, in itself. But if one tells a person that another is accused of manslaughter, that person will say, "Oh, boy, that's real murder, isn't it, with a vengeance!" That is the ordinary chap's idea of manslaughter. Then, attached to these motorcar killings

is the term of life imprisonment. I suggest in all seriousness that that out-of-date word be removed from the code.
I hear someone ask what word I would use instead. I could give a hundred, if necessary. But the question of negligence, and the amount of negligence as it has now been defined by our courts, I suggest should have the careful scrutiny of the law officers. I will go as far as to say this: Granted that there was someone whom I knew and wanted to murder; I could get him out on the street, run him down with my motorcar, kill him, run back and pick him up, report it to the police, follow him to the hospital-and I would not go to gaol for five minutes. There is no doubt about that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope that does not happen.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I have no desire to try it. But I say that is one section which urgently requires reform, having regard to the number of people who are killed each week in this country by motorcars.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member knows that there is an efficient committee of the Canadian Bar Association now giving careful study to the matter of substantial amendments to the criminal code. I shall see to it that at its forthcoming meeting it shall have available copies of to-day's Hansard. Attorneys general of the provinces are represented on that committee. The suggestion by the hon. member for the deletion of the word "manslaughter" from the criminal code would be looked upon as an important change. It is a suggestion concerning which I should like to have the considered opinion of those gentlemen who constitute the commitee and who represent the bars of the different provinces, and the attorneys general of those provinces.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I agree with that.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I believe it should be carefully considered, and that part of the public made up of members of the bar who
practise law should be ready for it, when it is done.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Is it not a fact that about 10 per cent of the drivers cause 60 per cent or 70 per cent of the accidents, and that there is a type of driver who is responsible for by far the greater number of accidents? I believe insurance companies have been able to typify the driver in -that class. Has a document not been published discussing that point?
Supply-Justice
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Undoubtedly during the war, and at the present time, because of the shortage of motorcars, less care has been taken in the inspection of cars used on the highways. The result has been the exercise of less care over the conduct of persons using motorcars than one might expect under usual conditions.
The idea of compulsory insurance to cover civil liability is spreading, and through that agency a considerable degree of control would be exercised.
I acted for the defence only once in an assize court in my province. On that occasion I defended a young man who had been unfortunate enough to cause the death of a fellow man. There may be some whom it is proper to describe as motorcar killers; but sometimes there are genuine accidents.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Indeed, yes.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Those accidents cause great pain to the ones who have been the occasion of the accidents. So that one has to be careful when sorting the sheep from the goats.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is true. The fact that there is only one prosecution to every three deaths shows great discretion in the matter of laying charges.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes; and one has to be most careful in that regard. I appreciate fully the humane feelings of the hon. member for Broadview, and that it was such feelings which found expression in the bill submitted by him. But I believe, if the hon. member for Calgary West will look at it, he will realize that it cannot be accepted in its present form.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was not advocating that.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; I am sure the hon. member would not advocate it in that form. I believe that as soon as it becomes possible to exercise care in seeing to it that people do not travel the highways with conveyances which are not in a proper condition, there are apt to be fewer accidents.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I think so too. Reference has been made to compulsory insurance. In the commonwealth of Massachusetts, it has been found the compulsory insurance increased the number of accidents, because many drivers, because of holding insurance, felt they were relieved from responsibility. I believe the underwriters' rate actually went up.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
Supply-Justice

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply. Mr, Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
96. Departmental administration, $199,970.
Mr. MacNICOL:: I wish to speak for a few moments on a problem that has been brought up in the house over quite a long time, and I am sure that no one will be more pleased than the Minister of Justice when this problem is solved. I refer to the after-care of gaol prisoners. I have not read anything showing how much progress the minister has made in attacking this problem since the last session, but I know he does take a great interest in it. It was a problem that was also very much on the mind of his predecessor. I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver Centre will recall how earnest the former minister was in advocating, in this house, reform in the after-care of prisoners. I very well remember his saying that unless we passed a certain bill at that time, which I am sorry to say it was found afterwards could not be put into operation, he did not feel that he could continue with his arduous duties in connection with the rehabilitation of ex-prisoners.
What has been done in this matter since last year I do not know, but I was very much interested to read a few days ago some remarks made by the Reverend Walter B. Craw of Brantford, Ontario, a clergyman of Zion United church in that fine city of yours, Mr. Chairman, one of our greatest manufacturing cities. This clergyman is known everywhere for his interest in the rehabilitation of released prisoners and their after-care. His remarks which I shall quote were not made with any idea of casting reflections on the minister's department, for this is a matter that the provinces have a lot to do with, and we are all hoping that after the passing of the resolution by the house yesterday it may be a 'little easier for the Minister of Justice to bring about needed changes. The item is headed, "Prison system said outmoded," and reads: Brantford, May 20-(special) Bev. Walter B. Craw last night told his congregation at Zion United Church that though we are one of the youngest nations in the world we are still maintaining one of the civilized world's most outmoded prison systems and paying for it with skyrocketing crime waves.
As I see it, the biggest problem in the minister's department to-day is the instituting and bringing about of reforms in after-prison

care. I know and the minister knows that many societies in Canada, churches and institutions* of every description, are ready and anxious and willing to help in every way they can to provide better after-prison care.
Only the other day I read a report issued by Mr. J. Alex. Edmison, K.C., of Toronto, who is particularly well known in our city for his humanitarian efforts and for his activity in the Prisoners' Rehabilitation Society of Ontario. I like to follow the proceedings of this society, knowing a number of the personnel of the organization and being interested in its w'ork. The president is Brigadier-General D. C. Draper, C.M.G., D.S.O., and the executive officers include Mr. T. F. Monypenny, vice-president; Mr. J. Milton Cork, treasurer; Rev. Gilbert Agar, B.A.; Mr. J. A. Edmison, K.C., and Mr. R. H. Carpenter. The executive council is composed of distinguished men, most of whom and their achievements I know. During the last few years that this Ontario Prisoners' Rehabilitation Society has been in operation it has reclaimed, through providing jobs for them, some 5,483 former prisoners.
1 get a good deal of satisfaction myself in assisting ex-prisoners to rehabilitate themselves. Many of them got into trouble in the first place through lack of funds, not from any desire to lead a criminal life, but just because they did not have a job and needed money. I am speaking of those with whom I have been in contact. If an ex-prisoner can be provided with a job which will supply him with funds this particular society has found that a large per cent of the ex-prisoners can be reclaimed. That has been my own experience in a very small way, with ex-prisoners.
I have in mind two young men. One had been in prison for two and a half years. He had a Christian mother, and when her son was let out of prison she came to see me.
I asked her to send her son to see me; he came, and I gave him the best talk I could about walking straight and keeping straight, that I depended upon him and that I would get him a job. It was quite a job to get him a job, because here is the trouble. When he approaches an employer the first question he is asked is, "Where have you been working?" What answer can he make? This particular boy had been in the Ontario reformatory at Guelph, and I made it my business to call up one employer after another and plead with them to give him a job, saying that I would be responsible for him. I am happy to say that he got a job and has made good, and his mother, a widow with a big family, is very happy over it.
That case is similar to another one with which I had something to do recently. This is what one might call a big brothers' move-

Supply-Justice
ment. The minister knows better than anyone else that if each one of us would do his part to assist him and his department in rehabilitating and getting jobs for worthy ex-prisoners we could achieve something that is well worth striving for. This Borstal prisoners' rehabilitation department has found that 58 per cent of the ex-prisoners make good. Let me quote from an article, "The Problem of Prison After-Care", by J. Alex Edmison, K.C., published in May, 1946:
The report of the royal commission on the penal system of Canada in 1938 is generally conceded to be the most exhaustive penological study ever attempted in this country. The fact that no major steps have been taken to implement the recommendations of Judge Archambault and his colleagues is a source of despair to penologists in Canada and of bewilderment to those experts abroad who advised the commission during their exploratory tour overseas.
I do not blame the minister for the fact that the recommendations in this report have not been carried out, but I should like the minister to tell us what the trouble is, why the proposals cannot be carried out, and then it will be up to this house to do the best it can to assist him in taking effective action. Certainly the commission, -which was appointed during the term of the minister's predecessor, has presented a comprehensive and exhaustive report. I have heard it said in the house two or three times that effect could not be given to it because of the division of authority between the provinces and the dominion. I for one hope that some modus operandi will be arrived at whereby the two authorities can work together in order that the whole penal system can be modernized, much as has been done by Borstal in' the old country.
In an address on June 13 to the Rotary club at Hull, Judge Archambault gave a learned address on this subject, in which he referred to the principles of rehabilitation and the sort of scientific approach which should be taken to the subject. In the course of his speech he mentioned the Borstal system. I am not going to dilate on it at the moment. I would rather hear the minister tell us what programme has been instituted, perhaps in his department, to adopt something like the Borstal system in this country. It is a system of which I have made an exhaustive survey, visiting many prisons in England and observing their procedure. I believe they have seven main institutions. First, prisoners are sent to Wormwood Scrubbs. They are there examined, and there it is determined what other institution they should be sent to, with a view of directing their thoughts along the lines of improving their best aptitudes. A wonderful work is being accomplished, as the minister, perhaps, knows better than any of
us. My own knowledge comes from having investigated quite a number of these prisons and learning, while there, how they work. In the course of my survey I was told on many occasions that quite a number of these young lads went astray because of mental deficiency. As I remarked a few days ago in relation to another matter, the Prisoners' Rehabilitation Society of Ontario state in a report that, in 1945, of the 2,810 inmates of Ontario prisons and reformatories, 10-13 per cent are markedly mental defectives. That being so, a prison is no place for them. They can be restored through new systems of mental hygiene which the Minister of National Health and Welfare supports in his estimates. Perhaps many of these young lads could be reclaimed by being sent to some institution where their mental status could be improved. This report also states that 14-04 per cent were on the borderline of being mental defectives. A prison is not the place for that type of young man. I hope that the minister's department, cooperating in some way with the provinces, will see to it that such lads are not sent to a prison, where they will only learn more crime from older people, but will be sent to some institutions where their mental condition can be improved.
Judge Archambault is undoubtedly one of the most distinguished, if not the most distinguished of penologists in Canada, mainly because of his long and exhaustive experience in connection with the investigation by his commission, and I hope that some method can be found to carry out the programme he has so strongly recommended.
Others will help, I know of the work Lieutenant-Colonel Wallace Bunton of the Salvation Army in Toronto. I know that on many occasions numbers of young people have been delivered into his care right out of the police courts in Toronto, and everyone who is familiar with that fine man's splendid work knows what a wonderful success he has made in reclaiming prisoners. The view expressed, quite rightly, by those engaged in reforming these lads is that the trouble most frequently arises from lack of home training. These young folks need love and affection, and when they find men like Lieutenant-Colonel Wallace Bunton who are sympathetic to them it does them a great deal of good. It would be a great thing for this country if some programme could be initiated by which many other people in every city in Canada could be induced to assist in the rehabilitation of these young lads.
I should like to hear the minister say what progress has been made in instituting in Canada something comparable to the Borstal
Supply-Justice

system, and what progress has been made in bringing together remedial agencies in line with the recommendations of the report of the royal commission, so that all, working together, can do in Canada something like what is now being done in the old land. I realize that our geographical position is quite different from that of the United Kingdom; yet it should be possible to put in operation a system something like the one they have over there. Would the minister tell us what is now projected and being done toward instituting in Canada something along the lines of the Borstal system?


Mr. McKAY:: Is it the wish of the minister at this time to continue the discussion on item 106, which has to do with penitentiaries, or would he rather carry on with item 96?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Of course the estimates are in the hands of the committee. We are on item 96. It has always been the practice, on the item dealing with general administration, to discuss matters which are not particularly dealt with in any separate item, and I do not want to raise any objection to anything dealing with, matters under the jurisdiction of my department which hon. members wish to discuss. But we have now had several hours of this discussion. I am not suggesting that it should be shut off, but as soon as it suits the convenience of the members of the committee to take up separately the consideration of the items which are before the committee for its study I think we shall be able to make more progress.


Eric Bowness McKay: Perhaps the minister could answer all the suggestions in regard to penal reform when we deal with section 106, on penitentiaries.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think it would be more convenient to reserve those matters until we reach the item which relates to the branch administration of penitentiaries.


The CHAIRMAN:: Do I understand that the committee will discuss the question raised by the hon. member for Davenport, that is to say the Borstal system, and other matters affecting penitentiaries, when we come to item 106?


Mr. FAIR:: There is one question I would ask the minister in regard to men who have joined the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I have heard a number of complaints from some of the younger men because they are not allowed to marry until they have had so many years' service.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I suggest that the hon. member allow that question to stand

until we reach the estimates of the R.C.M.P. They are not part of the Department of Justice, and there are special items dealing with that branch, namely, 348 and following.


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: I doubt whether the matter I am about to discuss may properly be brought up under any further estimates which we may consider. I would suggest to the minister that there be an amendment either to the Admiralty Act or to the Canada Shipping Act, 1934, to provide that action may be maintained against the ship herself by the dependents of a person who has lost his life through the negligence of those in charge of the navigation of the ship. The law to-day is that those whose property is destroyed or damaged by a ship have a cause of action against the owners of the ship in cases where the damage has been occasioned by some wrongful act on the part of those responsible for the ship. Likewise, if anyone is injured he has an action which can be brought against the owners of the ship where his injuries have resulted from negligence on the part of those in charge of the ship. However, the law to-day provides no remedy or redress in the case where death has occurred, and the dependents are looking for some relief. That is not the case in the United States or in Great Britain. In both those countries an action does lie on behalf of the dependents against the owners of the ship, and that action may be enforced in the admiralty courts by the arrest of the ship.
This is a matter to which I have called the attention of the Minister of Justice and of the deputy minister many times in the last few years. I understood, however, that, owing to war-time legislation and the necessity of giving priority to important legislation arising out of the war, the time had not come when the necessary amendments to either statute whch I have mentioned could be made. It involves a very simple proceeding to create this action. All that is necessary is the insertion, in either of the acts that I have mentioned, of a provision similar to those which we have in the fatal injuries act of Nova Scotia.
The matter has not been of such great importance during the war years, for the reason that during those years shipping- American, British and allied-has been for the most part controlled by governments, and ships owned by governments or under charter to governments were immune from arrest. The matter is now quite important, however, because from time to time we have cases where men lose their lives at sea. The ship that has caused the death may be a foreign ship,

Supply-Justice
and under our present laws the dependents of the man, even if Canadian citizens, have to go to foreign tribunals to recover damages for loss that has been sustained. They have not the right to arrest the ship in this country for the enforcement of their claims.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I understand that representations were made before the war, and there is a file in the department dealing with the subject. It involves questions that will have to be given careful consideration, because I understand that the hon. gentleman not only wishes a matter of procedure dealt with but wishes something that will establish legal right for compensation-a civil right, something which may perhaps be within provincial jurisdiction. It is a matter that will have to receive careful consideration. It does not mean merely creating a bit of legal machinery.


William Chisholm Macdonald: I agree with the minister that it is not solely a matter of procedure; but a statute can create the right of action-a federal statute, I believe.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The matter of determining to what extent a federal statute should create civil liability between an employer and his employee will have to be considered carefully, because it may well be something within provincial jurisdiction. However, I am informed that, for the reasons which the hon. member mentioned, it did not appear to be urgent during the war, and now that shipping is getting back into private hands it is necessary to come to some conclusion. I can assure him that the matter will be given careful consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: With respect to the imposition of fines, in the United Kingdom changes have recently been made whereby, when a fine is imposed on a person who by reason of poverty is unable to pay, provision is made so that such person shall not be required to serve the alternative penalty, namely imprisonment. As things are at the present time, that condition is ameliorated in many cases by magistrates who postpone, sometimes for a considerable period, the imposition of the alternative penalty by failing to sign the warrant of commitment, thereby enabling the convicted person to raise the fine and costs. In the United Kingdom that has been done away with, so that those who are poor should not be penalized in consequence, discretionary power rests in the magistrate with respect to the imposition of the alternative. That, I think, is one matter which should receive the attention of the department. We all know of cases where, in respect
of petty offences, a fine is sufficient to meet the ends of justice; but accused find themselves, through inability to pay, facing the alternative of imprisonment. It is a matter, as I say, which will require considerable thought in its application, but I believe the system adopted in Britain to-day might very well be brought into effect here.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member is aware that there have been representations by the Canadian Bar Association along those lines, and there are many recommendations for amendment of the criminal code, which recommendations have accumulated and are receiving consideration. As many of those recommendations as appear to be urgent, and for which it is felt there will be time in which parliament can give them consideration, will be included in the bill to amend the criminal code. They will be included if it is found that there will be time for the proper consideration of that kind of bill.


John George Diefenbaker: It would be a commendable move.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Justice-
97. Remission service, including remuneration to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force (to be expended under order in council, and_ not to exceed $1,600) for assistance to this service, and an amount of $10,900 to reimburse the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force the amounts disbursed by them in ordinary pay and allowances to their men on loan to this service, $55,945.
John George Diefenbaker: I understand that there is no uniform remission service applicable to all sentences at the present time. In South Africa there is in effect a system whereby, immediately after a convicted person has been sentenced to a penal institution, there is automatically a review of his sentence with a view to securing uniformity in all parts of that country. It is a system which has worked out very well for all. In some provinces heavy penalties are imposed and in other provinces lesser sentences are imposed for the same offence. If the suggested system were adopted a degree of uniformity would be secured.
Has the minister given consideration to the setting-up of a form of remission service so that, . instead of the accused appealing in every case against a sentence which he regards as unfair and unjust, the officers of the department would have the power and also the responsibility of immediately reviewing the circumstances in each case to the end that uniformity of sentences be secured in all provinces?
Supply-Justice

Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The minister has
not given consideration to that, and is not yet convinced that it would be proper for him to do so. Under our system the administration of justice is given to the courts, and the minister would feel that it would be impertinent on his part to set up a bureau *n his department to review, modify and harmonize the judgments rendered by the courts of justice. The only power that exists in the federal authority to deal with that is the power of clemency exercised by His Excellency on the recommendation of a minister of the crown. It would be going much beyond what the power of clemency implies to set up an administrative court or bureau of review to deal with sentences pronounced by the courts of justice.


John George Diefenbaker: In reality, is that not what has being done by the remission branch here for a period of time?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	No, that is not
what has been done by the remission branch or a period of time. What is done by the remission branch is to take the sentence as a proper sentence imposed by the proper authorities and then to see whether there are features in the case which would make it one which could be recommended to the sovereign for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy.


Arthur Leroy Smith: In connection with remissions, is the system of personal interviews carried out? What I have in mind is this, I know there are counsel and so on, but we will assume that a man is in Stony Mountain penitentiary. Does someone from here personally chat with that fellow and so on before he makes up his mind?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Not in every case.
There are inspectors who, when they inspect the penitentiaries, have interviews with those who are applying for some measure of remission; but it must not be forgotten that the prerogative of clemency is exercised not only with respect to those who are confined to federal institutions but also with respect to those who are in provincial gaols. It frequently happens that there is an application for clemency with respect to a sentence being served in a provincial gaol. That is dealt with without there being a personal interview between anyone connected with the Department of Justice here and the applicant. In those cases, the application is

dealt with on the basis of information obtained form others than officers of the Department of Justice.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
99. Expenses of litigated matters, $25,000.
John George Diefenbaker: What were the
expenses for litigated matters during the current year?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: $9,960.64.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Exchequer Court of Canada-
102. Administration, $48,540.
John George Diefenbaker: On the last occasion that these estimates were before the committee a question arose with regard to the number of judgments which had been held up in the exchequer court for a period of more than one year. During the war, having regard to the tremendous volume of litigation as between the crown and private individuals, the exchequer court found itself in the position where the judges got far behind in their work. As I see it, in no case was it due to any lack of efficiency on the part of the judges, but rather to the lack of sufficient judges and also to the increased amount of litigation. However, a serious situation had developed in that, as I remember it, fifty cases had been concluded without any judgment having been given. Would the minister advise whether that situation has been met and to what extent judgments have not been delivered for a period of more than one year?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It will be remembered that parliament provided for the appointment of an additional judge, who was appointed about a year ago. Since that time an effort has been made to have the new cases tried by the new appointee, or by judges assigned as ad hoc judges to the exchequer court. Three ad hoc judges have assisted in the work of the exchequer court during the course of the last year: His Honour Judge Cameron, Mr. Justice Smith and Mr. Justice Michaud, and they heard quite a large number of cases. Since the first of January His Honour Judge Cameron has delivered judgment in three cases and has one still under consideration. Mr. Justice Smith heard two cases and delivered judgment since the first of January, and Mr. Justice Michaud, ten, and has four still under consideration.
The president of the court just a few days ago, less than a week ago, when I asked the clerk of the court for a report, still had under advisement twenty-three cases, ten of which were of 1945 and 1946, and thirteen of which

Supply-Justice
were of 1943 and 1944. Mr. Justice Angers had twenty-three, fourteen of which were of 1944 and nine of 1945 and 1946, and Mr. Justice O'Connor still had eight reserved in 1946.


Arthur Leroy Smith: How many did Mr. Justice O'Connor try?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Since his appointment? I have not that figure; but the information I have is that the cases which have been tried by Mr. Justice O'Connor have been disposed of without there being accumulation. The president of the court and Mr. Justice Angers still have several of these cases of 1944 and early 1945 that have not yet been disposed of, but they are being disposed of with considerable dispatch. The president of the court has disposed of seven since January
1.	1946. and Mr. Justice Angers has disposed of twelve. I was informed also that the president of the court had three judgmeqts about ready which he expected to hand down within a very short time and that Mr. Justice Angers had five which he was completing and which would be handed down within a short time.


Mr. RICHARD (Ottawa East):: Under this item I see that the salary of the registrar is given as $5,000 and that of the deputy registrar as $3,720. I have had quite a bit of experience in the exchequer court, in patent matters; I know the importance of the post of registrar and deputy registrar, especially now that there are three judges on the exchequer court. I know the work of a good registrar and a good deputy registrar is important, and since the minister's predecessor saw fit to increase the salary of the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada to S7,500, for work which is comparable with that of the registrar of the exchequer court, I feel that some consideration should be given to making the salary of the registrar of the exchequer court at least respectable.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The question of the salary of the registrar, and the salaries of the additional help that will be required in order that the affairs of the court may be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, is under consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
103. Yukon territorial court-administration, $5,040.
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I am not a lawyer; I do not know much about these matters, but I notice that in Ontario we have some sixty-five county court judges who receive salaries of $5,000 each. I understand that the minister has under advisement at the present
time the matter of increasing the salaries of some of these judges, but I should like to point out that we have several of these county court judges living in the city of Toronto, and I know their cost of living is much greater than is the case in some of the smaller places. So that it seems to me there should be some differential when we decide what the county court judges should receive in future. I do not know whether the judges of the circuit court in the province of Quebec would be equivalent to the county court judges in Ontario, but I notice that these judges in Quebec receive $7,000. I notice also that in that province there are thirty-eight judges receiving $9,000 each. There do not seem to be many county court judges in Quebec. I do not know the principle of the thing, but I know how hard these men are worked. A salary of $5,000 might have been all right when they took the job, before the war when the income tax was.a great deal lower than it is to-day, but these men are in responsible positions, and I want to put in a word on their behalf in order that when this salary revision takes place some consideration may be given from the point of view of the places where these judges reside, so that they will not be all treated in the same way. Certainly I believe the cost of living might be taken into consideration.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am afraid the hon. member will be disappointed. That point has been given careful consideration; and while there is much to be said for the views expressed by the hon. gentleman, if he could see the representations I have received from all over the country since it became rumoured that there was to be a difference as between judges living in one place and those living in another, he would conclude, as we have had to conclude, that the proposal we shall make to parliament-of course parliament will deal with it as it may see fit-will have to be uniform for all county court judges.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I notice that under this item there is an increase of $9,000 in the salaries and travelling allowances of judges.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The committee is considering item 103, Yukon territorial court, administration, $5,040. Shall the item carry?


Charles Edward Johnston: Oh, no; you are going too fast.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Might I point out to the hon. member that the matter to -which he refers is not a vote. It is just included to show what is required by statute to be
Supply-Justice

paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for salaries of judges. If the hon. member were here this afternoon he heard that, a bill is to be introduced this year to deal with judges' salaries. The salaries are not voted, but the amounts required are indicated in the estimates for the information of hon. members. The matter of what is the proper salary and why there should be an increase will be gone into fully when the bill to modify those salaries is brought before the house.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not so much concerned about the salaries; what I wanted was a little information concerning the allowances. Do they include allowances for wives of judges?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There is no allowance for wives of judges.


John George Diefenbaker: Having regard to the number of judges who are serving on boards, such as those under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and other administrative bodies, is it a fact that these judges receive allowances over and above their official salaries while they occupy these positions? If so, will the minister give a list of the judges who during the current year received, in addition to their indemnities as judges, additional amounts earned while serving on boards or administrative bodies? That is one subject which is the cause of considerable complaint among the judges themselves, that certain members of the judiciary, while occupying such positions, receive the full amount of their indemnities as judges and, in addition, payments for other services. I am not going to mention anyone specifically, but I know of two cases where judges occupied administrative positions and were paid on a per diem basis. Their absence not only disturbs the court but also causes not a little annoyance to the other members of the bench on whom additional duties fall by reason of their absence.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: All I can say to the hon. member is that the only additions the judges receive from the Department of Justice, bej'ond their statutory salaries, are the travelling allowances which are also fixed by statute.


John George Diefenbaker: That does not
answer the question at all. Let me put a specific example before the minister, that of a judge of the high court who receives $9,000 a year if he is a puisne judge and a larger amount if he is a chief justice. While receiving that indemnity, this judge serves as chairman or other officer under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and receives an additional amount for the services he renders. That is referred to as expenses, but I want

to find out if it is $15 a day or S25 a day that he receives while performing these extra services. Whatever the additional amount is, I want a list of the judges who have received additional amounts, over and above their indemnities, from the federal government during the past year.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I shall have to make the hon. member's question an order for return. A judge gets nothing additional from the Department of Justice. If he is acting under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, which is under the administration of the Minister of Finance, I am not in a position to say whether there is an allowance there, or what it is. I shall bring the h.on. member's question to the attention of the Minister of Finance, and perhaps we can have an inquiry made in the various departments.


John George Diefenbaker: That is satisfactory.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: But the Department of Justice certifies the vouchers for payment of salaries provided by the Judges Act, and the travelling expenses and allowances under that act.


Charles Edward Johnston: I understood the minister to say that no allowances were paid to judges' wives. I recall that a while back one or two judges were sitting on a board of arbitration, and the wives did receive special allowances. Has that any connection here?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I say to the hon. member, as I said to the hen. member for Lake Centre, that there have been occasions when judges have been required to fulfil special functions with other departments; and it may be that there were arrangements under which they got expenses, or perhaps even allowances for doing so. But that was not from the Department of Justice. If the hon. member would say what the function was I could inquire from the department under which that function was fulfilled.


Charles Edward Johnston: There would be nothing extra in this vote.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, there is nothing in this. This is really not a vote, but rather a statement to the house that the amount payable under the Judges Act for the salaries fixed by parliament, and the amount payable for travelling expenses, aggregate the figure mentioned here.


Charles Edward Johnston: Would the Department of Justice recommend an additional amount like that as travelling expenses for judges wives?

Supply-Justice
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; that would be an arrangement made by the department requiring the special services.


Charles Edward Johnston: To the Department of
Finance.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, to the Department of Finance.


Mr. REID:: How are the supreme court judges apportioned? Are there as many supreme court judges in British Columbia, for example, as there are in Ontario? I understand that some of the smaller provinces, with smaller populations, have as many supreme court judges as Ontario.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The courts are established by provincial legislation. Provincial legislatures determine what they require in their provinces as courts of justice. All the federal authority has to do is to appoint and pay those judges. Sometimes it happens that a legislature provides for more judges than the federal authority feels are required. In such event, it does not fill all the vacanies created by the provincial authority. We are, however, very careful in that regard. We do not feel we should take an arbitrary stand. After all, the local authorities know best what is required. We try to exchange views, and to meet the legitimate requirements of the population.


John George Diefenbaker: It seems strange
that the minister has not any information respecting the earnings of judges working for other departments of government or engaged on commissions for other departments. As an example, I refer to the coal inquiry which is now proceeding, and on which two judges of the supreme court are engaged, one from Nova Scotia and one from Alberta, and both estimable gentlemen. They have been engaged on that work for the last year. Do they receive their allowances as judges in their respective provinces during the time they serve on the coal inquiry; and do they receive, in addition to that, any per diem allowance designated as expenses, if you Will, but generally of sufficiently generous proportions that it goes beyond that? And, if so, has the minister any information as to how much they receive?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They receive their salaries as judges under the Judges Act, when they are fulfilling commissions to which they are appointed by governor in council. They do not receive travelling expenses provided by the Judges Act for sittings in courts, because that would not be applicable. It had been the practice, in spite of the terms of the
Judges Act, to have special allowances made without, it seemed to me, statutory authority. During the war that was provided for under the War Measures Act. Under that act an order in council was passed which provided that, notwithstanding the terms of this section of the Judges Act, allowances could be granted. I am not in a position to say what they are; but I am in a position to say that they have been carefully discussed and controlled by treasury board, because I know' of disputes which have arisen between treasury board and others as to what they should be. I am, however, not in a position to say what they were in respect of the two judges to whom the hon. member has referred.


Charles Edward Johnston: I should not like the
committee to get the impression that no allowances are being paid to judges' wives. I do not know whether this is the proper occasion to discuss the matter, but I must point out that in the auditor general's report for 1945, at page 41, near the back of the book-


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Charles Edward Johnston: -there is reference to
two judges' wives receiving allowances in substantial amounts.


William Ross Macdonald: Does the estimate to
which the hon. member is referring come under the Department of Justice? If not, it would not be in order.


Charles Edward Johnston: If the minister will tell me what item it comes under I shall leave it to that item?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The minister cannot tell the hon. member what item it comes under, because it is not in his department at all.


Charles Edward Johnston: But they certainly paid
the judges' wives, and that is what we are discussing now.


William Ross Macdonald: Order; at present the
committee is discussing estimates for the' Department of Justice. The estimates of any other department cannot be discussed at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: We might as well
face .the issue, so far as commissions are concerned. I have in mind in my own province two judges who served on royal commissions, one of whom received over $40,000 in a period of eight years.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: How
long?
Supply-Justice


John George Diefenbaker: Eight years. The
other received $26,000 in three or four years. I am sure, having regard to statements made by the minister on previous occasions, that he agrees that a judge's place is on the bench and that no measures should be taken which would enable judges to angle for preferment by securing commissions; because it places the judiciary in a position where, whether they are susceptible or not, they find themselves subject to the suspicion of being susceptible to influence in order to secure appointments on commissions. Appointment of judges to royal commissions is undermining our judiciary, because it places judges who are presumed to be removed from any influence whatever, in a position where, in order to secure preferment, the suspicion arises that political considerations are not always forgotten. For this reason the matter is of first importance, to assure the inviolability of the bench, which cannot be inviolable when judges find themselves in a position where from time to time they receive appointments which pay large amounts in addition to the salaries they receive as judges.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Were the amounts the hon. member for Lake Centre has mentioned paid in addition to the salaries these judges received?


John George Diefenbaker: Absolutely.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I can say to the hon. member that I know of no case where large amounts have been paid to judges acting on royal commissions. I know that on several occasions I have been asked to communicate with judges for the purpose of having them assume these special duties, and I have had to ask them to do it as a public service as something that was required to be done. I do not at all agree with the suggestion of the hon. member that there has been any angling for any one of these jobs. I will not say that I have communicated with every one who has been on these commissions, but every time that I have had anything to do with the appointment of a judge to one of these commissions I have found it difficult to convince him that he should perform this public service.
I remember, not because it was something that came before me in the Department of Justice, but because it was something that came before me in connection with an allowance made to a judge who came here as chairman of the war labour board, that he would not have come if there had not been an expense allowance sufficient to enable him to bring his wife with him. There was a lot of discussion over the fixing of the amount.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was ruled out because it was under the Department of Labour.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I heard of this as a member of the treasury board. I think the hon. member for Lake Centre is doing a disservice to the judicial body of Canada by his suggestion that there are judges angling for appointments on these commissions. That is not my experience, and I have been here now for almost five years. Whenever it has been necessary to get a judge to act on these commissions, I had to ask him to do it as a public service and frequently as a war service. While engaged on such services, judges have frequently come to me asking if I did not think they had done their share and asking to be relieved. I can assure the hon. member that the judges do not like to do that work.


John George Diefenbaker: On royal commissions?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That has been my experience.


Charles Edward Johnston: One got $8,000 extra and another $6,000 extra.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let us get the record straight. Take my own department.


Charles Edward Johnston: If we are going to discuss the Department of Labour, Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss the matter I raised a few moments ago.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The minister has not had an opportunity yet to let the committee know what he is going to talk about, so that I cannot rule him out of order.


Humphrey Mitchell: I had not intended to say anything on this question, because I am busy at the moment on what some members would call a week's work and which I am trying to do in half an hour. A great deal has been said by the hon. member for Lake Centre about the judiciary. When I was a young man in the labour movement in Hamilton judges were appointed, in the majority of cases, under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, to act as chairmen of conciliation boards. My mind goes back to Judge Snyder, who was always very fair and who the labour people of Hamilton always thought would render a fair decision.
Then, during the war it was customary to have judges act as chairmen of the mobilization boards. Again, we have had judges acting as chairmen of the national vrar labour board and the national labour relations board, and let me say that it takes some courage for a man to assume responsibility as chairman of such a board as the national war

Supply-Justice
labour board. It is the easiest thing in the world for hon. members to rise in their places in the house and criticize when they have no responsibility. But I want to say to hon. gentlemen that the judges who have assumed these obligations under my department have rendered a service to the whole nation during the war period and in the post-war period too, for which they should be highly commended.
The hon. member for Lake Centre has introduced the political angle and talked about political preferment. I recollect asking Mr. Justice McTague to be chairman of the national war labour board, and he made an excellent chairman. When he had to retire because of pressure of the duties involved in such a responsible position, I asked Mr. Justice Archibald to assume the chairmanship of that board.


Charles Edward Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, are we discussing Judge Archibald now?


William Ross Macdonald: There has been a general discussion to-night on the position of judges, and the Minister of Labour is discussing the general question of the services which have been rendered to our country by judges.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am speaking of my experience in my own particular field. It is difficult to get someone who is impartial to act in a labour dispute, but I am glad to say that the judges who have served as chairmen have been looked upon with high regard by both the labour men and the employers in this country. Take for instance, the dispute in inland shipping. Where, outside the judiciary, could you have got somebody to act as commissioner who would not be accused of being partial? Or take the great services rendered by Mr. Chief Justice Sloan in the dispute in British Columbia. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite to rise in their places and suggest somebody else in British Columbia who would have undertaken that difficult assignment. So I go right down the line in the regional war labour boards, and I ask them to suggest to me somebody who would undertake those difficult assignments.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: And handle them.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, and handle them the way they have done.
The hon. member for Lake Centre spoke this afternoon about salaries of judges. He said that it took some courage to say what he was saying about their salaries. With due deference to my hon. friend, it takes no courage at all to be just and I think the
time for the increase of the salaries of the judiciary of this country is long past and gone.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It is not gone.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is gone up to the moment. I think it is an obligation on members of the House of Commons to see that that situation is rectified before this parliament prorogues.


Mr. FULTON:: Yes, but not by appointing them to royal commissions.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend ever gets any responsibility in this country, and he is looking for someone with courage, he will go to just the same place as I have had to go, and that is to the judiciary. I hope that before parliament prorogues, we, irrespective of party, will see to it that the men who honour the bench in this country, and honour this country, receive the salaries to which, in my judgment, they are justly entitled.


Mr. JOHNSON:: And old age pensions, too.


Humphrey Mitchell: I thought my hon. friend would get down in the gutter again.


Charles Edward Johnston: On a point of order, I ask that the minister withdraw that remark. Surely he would not imply that the old age pensioners are down in the gutter.


Humphrey Mitchell: All right.


Charles Edward Johnston: I insist that he withdraw the remark.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He did not say that.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Bow River has requested a withdrawal.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have withdrawn it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. If hon. members would not interrupt they would have heard the Minister of Labour say that he withdrew the statement.


Humphrey Mitchell: When my hon. friend talks about old age pensions he might bear in mind that I was advocating old age pensions before he ran for parliament. I want to tell my hon. friend that before he was ever heard of in this country-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You have not done much about it, though.


Humphrey Mitchell: Will my hon. friends be quiet for five minutes? I signed the agreement between the Hon. Howard Ferguson and the Hon. Peter Heenan which brought old age pensions into existence in Ontario.
Supply-Justice


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: For how much a month?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: More than you ever gave them. It was given by a Liberal government.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think it is altogether fair to try to deflect the argument in this way. I was putting what I think is a sound, reasonable and just case for a group of men who have made a great contribution to this nation in war, and are making an equal contribution in the difficult reconversion period we are now passing through.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I want to add my word. I do not quite know whose side I am on in this thing.


James Sinclair: You won't be against the judges, I suppose.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. member for Vancouver North is quite right. The only way I ever succeeded in law was by standing in with them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By convincing them.


Arthur Leroy Smith: In this way, I sent them a turkey but I sent it in the other fellow's name. That is the way to win a lawsuit. I am one of those who are anxious to agree with the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Labour and his Charley who is sitting in front of him and making a speech for him a moment ago. I want, in so far as I may, to uphold their hands in most of the things which they have said. I know that the compliments of the Minister of Labour to our judiciary were quite sincere. I call to his attention, however, that in this house last fall I made a suggestion to him that what I thought was wrong with our capital and labour relations was the lack of the introduction of the rule of law into these differences, and my suggestion was that we should have a judge or judges of the supreme court in each province to whom either party might go on a voluntary appeal. My thought was that now, once conciliation fails, we have strikes and really the rules of the jungle are the only rules by which these things are determined. The strong man or the strong company waits until it is going broke before it capitulates; the labour men engaged in the strike wait until they get hungry. This is the simple situation with respect to these matters.
Now what has happened? Mr. Justice Richards settled an incipient packers' strike all across Canada; meetings were held in Winnipeg and Toronto. I commend the minister for his appointment in connection with the seamen's matter, because both on the Pacific coast and in the interior of the country

the appointee has done some amazingly good work. Then take the Ford situation, regarding which we were all so concerned last fall. Who settled that? A judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Justice Ivan Rand. Then, from my own province, Mr. Justice O'Connor has been called in and has done some excellent work in that way. Now Chief Justice Gordon Sloan, a young man who, as someone so well said, has made two studies in that province, one, of the coal mining interests and areas, and second, with respect to the whole logging and lumbering business, has finally brought, as the minister said, a peaceful conclusion to the strike out there. In all these things no one gains; the strikers lose their pay; the operator loses his business, and the public fail to receive the commodities produced by the combination of capital and labour in these businesses. So I repeat, with the liberty which the Chairman generously granted a moment ago, because this discussion grew out of the question of judges' salaries, that every major labour dispute dhring the t:me we have been sitting here, and since we left here last fall, has been settled by these trained, impartial men, these men of integrity. Therefore, why should we not legalize the position and thus prevent strikes, and then we would not be so concerned with settling them?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
105. Combines investigation branch, $67,430.
Mr. JAENICKE:: There is one condition which I should like to bring to the attention of the committee and of the Minister of Justice in connection with combines and cartels. My story concerns Canadian Industries Limited. I do not think I need tell the committee much about this firm, because in the report, "Canada and International Cartels", which I believe was tabled last fall, the company is very well described. There is no question that, according to this report and to other facts which we know, this company has monopolies in the manufacture and sale of many commodities in Canada. One of these commodities in which the company has a monopoly is ammunition; that is, ammunition for civilian use, or what is usually called sporting ammunition. There is in Winnipeg a wholesale firm known as Merchants Consolidated Limited with a subsidiary called Falcon Hardware. . This company, I may say, is owned by individual retail merchants throughout western Canada. These individual retail merchants are shareholders of these companies. Last fall this bona fide wholesale firm tried to buy ammunition from C.I.L. Although they were selling to other customers, however, they refused to sell to Merchants Consolidated

Supply-Justice
and its subsidiary, Falcon Hardware. The company, or someone on their behalf, took the matter up with someone in Ottawa, with the result that, finally, last January, the company agreed to sell sporting ammunition to this concern. In order to make the situation clear, I shall read part of a letter which Merchants Consolidated wrote to their shareholders at the beginning of the year:
On January 26 we received a letter from the sales manager of the "dominion" ammunition division of Canadian Industries Limited,_ in which he stated that his company was now in a position to discuss the matter with us.
Later, this official wrote to state that he would call upon us either on the following Thursday or Friday. On Friday, February 8, he and his assistant called upon us and presented a letter addressed to this company under date of February 4, in which Canadian Industries Limited agreed to sell to the company on the basis of their "A" list, copy of which they attached to their letter. They stated that this list would be subject to discount of two and a half per cent on carload orders. They also set forth the quantity of ammunition they would be in a position to supply to us in the year 1946.
The prices on the "A" list are five per cent higher than the regular list applying to wholesale buyers. In other words, we are expected to pay five per cent more for ammunition than our competitors.
When. I first was apprised of these facts I thought the company, that is C.I.L., was guilty of an infraction of section 498 (aj of the criminal code. However, there is a saving clause, so to speak, at the end of the paragraph, and discrimination must exist in respect of the sale of goods of like quality and quantity. I had heard that C.I.L. had claimed that this company was not buying in the same quantities as their other customers or some of their other customers, and I therefore made inquiries of the company as to their trade and their capacity to accept goods from C.I.L. I quote a part of their letter which I received last April:
We note that you state that C.I.L. maintain that they cannot sell to us at the same price as they do to the two larger wholesale hardware houses in this city,-
That is, Winnipeg.
-because they sell to these people in larger quantities than they would sell to us. We do not think this is a good argument. We are ready to concede that possibly at the present time these people are in a position to buy somewhat larger quantities than we are, hut nevertheless we are prepared to buy, from C.I.L., ammunition in proper jobbing quantities. Also they will have on their books many accounts that will not buy any more than we buy and, in all probability, considerably less.
Further, it must be borne in mind that any figures that C.I.L. will quote as to the purchases of either of the two Winnipeg houses would include their western branches, which, obviously, is not a fair comparison.
. At the present time, with the shortage of supplies, C.I.L. are not in a position, as their representative informed the writer, to ship in carload quantities to any one buyer. They have to incorporate orders for two or more buyers in a carload. Further, even in times of normal production, they make up what are known in the trade as "pool cars" to the various distributing points of western Canada. It is true that wholesalers may bring in, in the fall of the year, in times of normal production, straight cars for themselves.
In addition to all this, this company and Falcon Hardware Limited are buying from C.I.L., in every other branch of their business, the goods we handle, and never at any time has there been any suggestion made that our volume did not comfortably come within the quantities usually purchased by wholesalers.
I am further informed that they sell these other goods to Merchants Consolidated Limited at the same price as they sell to the other competitors of this wholesale firm, which proves to me that in cases where they have monopoly, such as ammunition, they discriminate against this firm.
I personally believe that, on the basis of these facts, C.I.L. committed an offence under section 498 (a) of the criminal code. I am glad to see that the former section 20 in the Dominion Trades and Industry Commission Act will be transferred, under the new amendment to the Combines Investigation Act, to the combines investigation commission. The question I have to ask of the minister is this: Has he been informed of these conditions which I have explained, or has the commission informed him of this complaint, which has no doubt been made, and is any action being taken?
While I am on my feet I should like to mention another matter that occurred to me a few weeks ago, and possibly other members may have some views in this regard. There was a news dispatch to the effect that in the United States the International Nickel company of that country was being prosecuted by the Department of Justice for an infraction of the anti-trust laws of the United States, and according to this newspaper report the Canadian International Nickel company seemed to be very much involved. The question in connection with this matter, which I would ask the Minister of Justice, is: Is he aware of the prosecution being conducted in the United States, possibly involving the Canadian company, and has he made arrangements for a watching brief in those proceedings so that we may be informed of any of the facts that might be disclosed in that court?


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I associate myself with the hon. member for Kindersley in his last question. I have here the Northern Miner, and it would appear that the company involved

Supply-Justice

is the International Nickel Company of Canada. I would add that to what the hon. member has said. It is the Canadian branch which apparently is involved in the proceedings in the United States. According to information appearing in the press, the president, the vicepresident and the executive vice-president of the International Nickel Company of Canada are being sued; and this company, through its president, has issued a statement apparently denying the charges and expressing confidence -to quote from the Northern Miner-that "upon our record the United States courts will not sustain the Department of Justice." It appears, therefore, that the company will dispute the case. I would ask the minister whether he has any information with respect to this prosecution, which appears to involve the Canadian company, and, further, if he could as a matter of information tell the committee something of the work of the combines investigation branch. What I am particularly anxious to know is whether they set out to ascertain for themselves unfair trade practices and to uncover abuses, or whether they exist merely to investigate cases which have been reported to them.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This matter of the dispute between the C.I.L. and1 the Falcon Hardware company is still under investigation. Here is a case which may or may not, according to the facts disclosed by the investigation, fall under section 498 (a) of the code.
With respect to the case in the United States, the Department of Justice has not appointed counsel to hold a watching brief.
With respect to the third question, there is before parliament a bill which has already received its first reading and is due for second reading as soon as it can be reached, which will authorize the commissioner to make investigations whenever he has reason to believe that a combine or a monopoly exists or is being formed. The formal investigations are made upon complaints filed with the department. I think the hon. member and I are in agreement on the fact that it is probably better to prevent than to attempt to cure. It is hoped that the activities of the commissioner will be helpful, not only to the purchasing public but also to the trade, in pointing out to them in advance what things would amount to offences. Most people wish to avoid committing offences, and if they are informed and shown that there are certain things which they cannot do without falling foul of the law they are apt to refrain from doing them. It is hoped that there will be a spirit of cooperation; that is the line which is being followed at the present time; and
[Mr. Fulton.1
unless and until the commission gets the amendments which are proposed in this bill which is now before parliament, its activities are hampered.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can the minister tell us for information purposes whether he has any knowledge of the charges against the International Nickel company, and what is involved in the case?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; the department has no information in that respect at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because of the international implications in this matter, should we be questioning some other department? The minister said that his department knows nothing about it. Does that mean the government is not concerned in the matter?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not sure whether the Department of External Affairs has received any information or not. It is not necessarily an international matter when a citizen of one country is prosecuted for violating the laws of another country. On more than one occasion we have instituted proceedings against United States citizens without its becoming an international question. There have been quite a number of proceedings instituted against dealers in securities, for instance, with the allegation that they have violated the laws of another country, and it does not necessarily bring about exchanges between the state department and our Department of External Affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the fact that a United States department expressed concern about this company prompted the combines investigation branch or the minister's department to look into the same situation? Has what has happened in the United States prompted the investigation branch to make some inquiries of its own?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I shall have to ascertain whether the commissioner has yet started any inquiry in that connection. During the war period the activities of the commissioner were very much curtailed. As a matter of fact he was acting as an enforcement officer of many of the war-time regulations, because there was no opportunity for harmful effects from combines or monopolies while controls were being exercised by the wartime prices and trade board and by the administrators acting under the Minister of Munitions and Supply. But when these controls are removed there will be opportunity for combinations which may be harmful to the' public. It is for that reason that the machinery of the com-

Supply-Justice
mission is being put into shape to deal with the situation, and I am sure that the commissioner would secure all the information available about any Canadian concern which was charged elsewhere with constituting a combine or a monopoly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the minister will have all the information to answer the questions we have in mind when we reach the bill amending the Combines Investigation Act and will be able to deal more fully with them.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: There is one matter which concerns me in connection with this vote. I take it that this is the total vote for the combines investigation branch?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is the total vote in the estimates, but there will have to be a vote in the supplementary estimates, because within the last three or four days I signed a recommendation to the treasury board for a supplementary estimate.


Howard Charles Green: I think that will be necessary because, as the minister knows, this vote for S67,430 is only S6,430 greater than the vote for last year, and the difference is not made up by any increase in staff but by promoting one official and then the difference in printing, stationery, sundries, telephones, telegrams, postage and travelling expenses.
I believe that the people of the country are much concerned about the activities of cartels and combines. As hon. members know, we had a report just a few months ago submitted by Mr. F. A. McGregor, who is the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act. The report is entitled: "Canada and International Cartels", and is described as "An inquiry into the nature and effects of international cartels and other trade combinations." Among his recommendations I find the following on page 67:
It is recommended that there be more adequate provision for the initiation of inquiries by the combines investigation commission into restraints of trade and unfair trade practices.
Then Mr. McGregor goes on to point out that:
In the administration of the Combines Investigation Act in the future it will be necessary to engage to a greater extent than in the past in activities which will serve to prevent-the development-
And apparently he emphasizes those last two words:
-the development of undue restraints of trade as well as to take prompt action to prevent the continuation of such abuses. The successful development of preventive activities will require 63260-173i
that necessary inquiries be initiated by the commission without depending solely on the filing of statutory applications by the public, which ordinarily are not received until after the effects of a restrictive trade arrangement have become widespread.
He goes on to say:
It is recommended that steps be taken to build up an effective organization under the Combines Investigation Act to maintain much more comprehensive scrutiny of restrictive practices and developments than has heretofore been attempted.
Then he says:
To do this it will be necessary to recruit and train an adequate staff and to provide appropriations sufficient to enable the organization to function effectively. Such an organization should have the responsibility of securing at all times as full information as possible with respect to domestic-
Then he adds:
-and international trade combinations and monopolies and their effects on the producers and consumers of Canada.
It seems fairly obvious that if this commission is to carry out these increased activities a more effective machine will have to be set up. I would ask the minister to tell the committee whether or not it is the intention to implement the recommendation of the commissioner in this report on cartels and combines. As I said a few moments ago, the Canadian people are very much concerned about cartels and combines, and I think will be solidly behind whatever action may be necessary to curb their illegal and unfair activities. Apparently most of that work will have to be done by the combines investigation branch, so that obviously there must be some further vote than we have before us at present; otherwise nothing more can be done than has been done in the past.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is the intention of the government to recommend to parliament substantial implementing of the recommendations of this report; and bill No. 193 has been designed for that purpose. If parliament adopts that bill the supplementary estimates will contain the financial provision necessary to put the commissioner in a position to carry out the programme outlined in the report.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister tell us in what way the organization is to be strengthened?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: At this time I would not care to speak without having before me the detailed programme I had a few days ago when I made the recommendation to treasury board for inclusion of the amount required in the supplementary estimates. At that time I had before me a schedule of the
2728	COMMONS
Supply-Justice		
set-up , proposed by the commissioner, with the extension of the cost of carrying 'out that programme,, and it went; before treasury board in order to have the necessary amount included in the supplementary estimates. It is the kind of set-up the commissioner felt would be required substantially to implement the programme set out. in his report,
.Mr. GREEN: That should meet the case, then.	*** .	-


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Penitentiaries branch-
106. Rranch administration, $133,499.
Mr. BRYCE:: Coming from a constituency in which we have one of the largest penitentiaries, I have some matters I wish to bring before the Minister of Justice. I should like to urge once more that the warders and guards employed in the prisons should have at least a 44-hour week. Recently we have had quite a lot of people wanting a 40-hour week. This is a government institution, and surely we should not begrudge these men a 44-hour week. If, because of sickness or for any other reason, they have to work longer than that, such extra time should be allowed as overtime; or if that is against the regulations of the department, they should at least have time off equal to the extra time they put in. In case of sickness they may have to work a great many hours extra, so that I should like the minister to look into this matter and see if it is not possible to grant the penitentiary employees a 44-hour week.
On previous occasions I have appealed to the government in regard to the wages paid these men. I think they should receive more money because, if you want good men there, who will rehabilitate those who have gone wrong, you need a fine type of citizen, and with the wages you are paying to-day you will not get men of that type. The wages are not sufficient to attract men coming out of the armed forces. I refer to the report of the royal commission on the penal system of Canada, in which the commissioners had this to say:
It is also imperative that the pay of officers should be raised to a standard somewhat comparable to the rates prevailing in other similar services. It is hopeless to expect to get competent penitentiary officers at salaries that are considerably less than the wages paid to street cleaners in the large cities of Canada.
If there is anything we need to improve it is our penitentiaries, and that improvement can only be brought about by employing the best men available. So that I would ask the minister to take this into consideration.
Then I would suggest that when vacancies occur in the penitentiary service they be

advertised in all penitentiaries, so that men possessing the necessary qualifications may move from one part of the country to the other. This would mean more rapid promotion for good men and, I think, would be a step in the right direction. I also find that in this department as in others, when a man reaches the age of retirement and is entitled to three or six months' leave, another man cannot be employed until that leave is up. If you had a good man doing a good job before his service was completed, then you lose the benefit of that good work until he is replaced, and it means extra work for the remainder of the staff. I believe the civil service commission should make some recommendations to overcome that situation, In other departments you find that, when a man retires, somebody is ready to fill his place, and it should not be necessary to wait for six months before that is done.
Another matter I should like to mention is that ,the department is still working under the quota system, which means that a penitentiary where there is a small number of convicts is likely to be understaffed. I regard a penitentiary as something like the Queen Mary or the Queen Elizabeth. You would never think of sending either of these boats to sea without a full, adequate crew, but some penitentiaries in this country are being conducted with less than a full crew because the number of prisoners does not come up to the quota. I believe that should be changed, and the quota system should be abolished. Certain posts in a penitentiary have to be manned adequately at all times, and if you run short of crew you will run into difficulties right away; somebody is going to be neglected or someone is going to have too much to do.
I drew the minister's attention last year to the terrible housing ' conditions at Stony Mountain. They are disgraceful. The royal commission which investigated the penal system of Canada in 1936 said this:
Accommodation for the staff is inadequate. It is unreasonable and unnecessarily humiliating to ask members of the staff to live under conditions which now exist in officers' tenements belonging to the institution. These houses were built fifty years ago. They are without sanitary conveniences, and prisoners themselves are much more comfortably housed in their cells than officers in the penitentiary tenements.
Your commissioners are of the opinion that this state of affairs is destructive of the morale of the officers and that immediate steps should be taken to provide the staff and their families with respectable accommodation. In a large metropolitan centre the homes which are provided for the staff would, indeed, be condemned by the medical authorities.

Supply-Justice
When I drew that to the attention of the minister before, he told me they were going to build fifteen houses. I should like to know if they have reached a point of going on with the building of those houses, because the present condition is a disgrace.
I am appealing to the minister to institute a bus service between Winnipeg and the penitentiary, so that these men may live in decent homes. I know that all of them cannot be taken away; but some can be left there, and some permitted to go to Winnipeg, because it is a disgrace to ask people to live in homes like that.
What progress has been made with the new dairy herd established at Stony Mountain? How many animals are there? I draw the minister's attention to the fact that it will be only fair to the staffs of all penitentiaries in Canada to have all vacancies advertised in every prison.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Since the hon. member for Broadview is in his seat I should like to deal with two or three of the points he raised at the opening of the debate on these estimates. The matter of the consolidation of the criminal code is being dealt with progressively by an important committee of the Canadian Bar Association, on which the attorneys general of all the provinces are represented and which, without cost to the federal treasury, is doing work which will be of considerable value to the Canadian public.
I understood the hon. member to say that when he commenced practice there were three county court judges in Toronto. I believe there are nine to-day functioning under His Honour Judge Parker. The county and district court judges are required by the constitution to be members of the bar; so that if there are any gentlemen administering justice who are not members of the bar they must be magistrates appointed by some other authority, because the British North America Act in sections 96 and 97 expressly requires that the judges of the county and district courts, as well as those of the superior court, shall be members of the bar.
There was a suggestion that the federal government should reimburse to the municipalities costs of the administration of justice. That would involve a substantial change in the distribution of powers and responsibilities between federal and provincial governments. Proposals for the reallocation of some of the responsibilities between the two authorities were submitted to the dominion-provincial conference, but unfortunately it was not possible to get an agreement on the proposals.
Until some reallocation is made, I am afraid we shall have to leave it to the provinces and municipalities to continue to bear the cost of performing services which under the constitution are their responsibility.
In bill No. 13, standing in the name of the hon. member, which he permitted to stand pending consideration of the estimates, suggestions are contained which would not be within the constitutional jurisdiction of this parliament. Parliament cannot say what laws will bind judges who preside over courts. It has no right to say that those judges will-respect judgments rendered by higher courts, except in criminal matters. But in all other matters the administration of justice is presided over by judges appointed by the federal authority. This parliament has, however, no right to say to them what judgments they will render, and by what authority they will feel they are bound.
The other bill standing in the name of the hon. member deals with responsibility for motorcar accidents. It was discussed when the hon. member was not in his seat, but I believe all hon. members appreciate the motives which prompted his making the suggestions contained therein. However, I believe there are some principles underlying the suggested changes which it would be dangerous to adopt. I do not believe it has been a principle in the criminal code that guilt will be presumed, or even that there would be guilt without the element of intent for which the code now provides. I should hope that with the provision of better vehicles-which will become possible as soon as they are available-for those large numbers who are anxious to get them, there will not be on the highways the kind of vehicles which were used during the war years, and that that will be one substantial means of diminishing the number of accidents occurring on the highways.
I do not think we can prevent accidents by having severe legislation in the criminal code, and I believe that on reconsideration the hon. member would not want the presumption of guilt, which his suggested changes contain, to become part of the administration of our penal law. The matter is one of concern to all of us. It is receiving consideration, and will be dealt with, if it is felt that there will be time at this session of parliament to give it the consideration it deserves.
As to the suggestions made by the hon. member for Selkirk, he knows that a commissioner of penitentiaries has been appointed. I have read more than once the report of the Archambault commission. There is very much that is good in it. There are certainly some
Sup-ply-Justice

assertions in it that are exaggerated. I have not had time myself to verify all the conditions described in that report, and it is because I did not have the time to do so myself that I wished to have a commissioner who would go about and see just exactly what the conditions are.
The hon. member says that there are houses at Stony Mountain that are fifty years old. I was born in a wooden house that was more than fifty years old when I was born, and whenever I have an opportunity to go back to it I find great comfort in it yet. So that age alone is not suificient to condemn a house. I said to the hon. member that there was a project for the construction of fifteen additional houses for the Stony Mountain penitentiary; but the hon. member knows that those who are living in the houses there, if they vacated them, would soon be replaced by others who have no houses at all. There is quite a serious housing shortage all over the country; and for the purposes of this year's budget every department was told to keep its construction down to the very minimum because the government did not want to be charged with taking material for its purposes when material was required so urgently for those who have no houses at all, and for whom provision has to be made first.
The money is available for the construction, but we are not prepared to regard as more urgent the requirements of ourselves and' of our civil service than the requirements of the rest of the population, especially of the returning veterans. That puts upon the replacing of those houses a time limit which is not within our control.
The hon. member asks, are we any nearer toward the completion than we were last December or November when the estimates were being considered last year? I hope we are. I hope we are getting nearer every day to a situation where building material will be easier and where some construction can be provided. We are certainly much nearer to it than we were a week ago when the forest operations in British Columbia were interrupted by the strike. If we can all of us get to work and keep at work and not do foolish things we shall get to an easier position much more quickly than if we continue to do some of the foolish things we have been doing during the last several months, and I hope we all realize that. We all have the same interest-labour and management, and management and labour -and I hope we shall all take the view of the *commissioner, I think he was, in New Zealand
'Mr. St. Laurent.]
who recommended to the people there that if we want to improve our conditions we must all get down and produce.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is the only way to do it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: To that extent we shall get nearer the time when there will be the fifteeen houses built around Stony Mountain penitentiary. The hon. member suggests the establishment of a bus service. My information is that there is a public bus service from Winnipeg to Stonewall along a highway that is within a couple of hundred yards of the administration building of the penitentiary. I have not been there myself. I have not been anywhere else since I came to Ottawa four and a half years ago. But recently a commissioner has been appointed who is going all around to see the situation for himself, and who was recommended to me as one who is practical in such matters, on whose reports I could rely, and who would have the tact to try to harmonize and coordinate the good will of all these organizations to which the hon. member for Davenport has referred with respect to prison after-care. That is a matter that is not within our jurisdiction. It is not to pass the buck that I say that. It is something which is deserving of the best efforts of all jurisdictions concerned.
One of the qualities that I was looking for in the appointee to the penitentiary commission was the fact that would make it possible for him to interview the authorities of the provinces and of the municipalities and try to promote coordination and cooperation between us. My experience has been that we make much more progress by conferences between officials than we do when members of the various governments are called together in conference. The extent to which there is in fact cooperation between the officers of the provincial governments and the officers of the federal government is much greater than what we were able to accomplish in the conferences that were held between the premiers of the provinces and the representatives of the dominion government. I think, after the commissioner of penitentiaries has had an opportunity of visiting not only the penitentiaries which are under our jurisdiction but the prisons which are under provincial jurisdiction, and seeing the men who are in charge of those institutions and discussing with them what can be done to improve the situation, we are apt to get better results than we got when the premiers of the provincial governments and the representatives of the federal government got together to discuss amendments to the constitution and transfers of jurisdictions and responsibilities.

Supply-Justice


William Scottie Bryce: In reply to the minister, I should like to tell him that about sixty years ago I was bom in a little house among the heather that had very poor conveniences, and I do not want to go back and live under the same conditions again. I do not want anybody else to live under those conditions. The conditions that were good enough fifty years ago are not good enough to-day.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not saying that the house I was born in fifty years ago is in exactly the same condition to-day as it was then, and these houses around Stony Mountain penitentiary have been maintained and improved. I am not saying that they should not be replaced by something better as soon as it will be possible to get the materials to do so without taking that material away from those who need it to build homes for themselves. But the fact that a house is fifty years old does not in itself condemn it.


William Scottie Bryce: I agree with the minister to a certain extent, that an old house may be good. But if you want the best people to serve in Stony Mountain penitentiary you will not get them if they have to live in a house with no sanitary conveniences. You want the best people. The best people want something better than an outdoor toilet. The houses are fifty years old. I am ahead of the minister because I have been around there many times; I live not very far from there.


An hon. MEMBER:: Careful.


William Scottie Bryce: Having reached the age of sixty years without going in, I think'I can keep out during the rest of my life.
I should like the minister just to touch on the matter of the hours of work. They are working there for less wages than they should be working for, and longer hours than they should be working.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not prepared to admit that they are working more hours than they should work, or for less than they should be getting. I am prepared to admit that they are working forty-eight hours a week and that there is a feeling that men should not work forty-eight hours a week. I am not yet convinced that that is absolutely true, you know; but I am convinced that it will be necessary to have conditions there comparable with what conditions are elsewhere; and it was for the purpose of getting accurate, up-to-date information as to what should be done that the amendment to the Penitentiaries Act was made last year and that one penitentiary commissioner has been appointed. The fact of the matter is that whenever labour is at all "easy" we get a large number of applications for these penitentiary jobs. We do not always get them from the kind of people who should have the jobs. I agree with the hon. member that we should have improvement in our custodial staffs. It is something toward which we are working; and, from the reports I get about him, I have great confidence in the gentleman who has become the penitentiary commissioner, and who has already visited two of these institutions and made a thorough and careful investigation of the situation, who is proceeding to visit the others, and who will be able to make recommendations which can be implemented. When I had my conversation with him about the nature of his duties I told him that we wanted someone who would help us make in our penal system all the improvements that one could recommend to practical men as being things to be realized. I think we shall get somewhere; we have started in the right direction and we shall get results. But we shall not get at once a Borstal system controlled by a federal department, because that is something which would affect the whole of our penal institutions, and this government has control only of the penitentiaries, whilst there are certainly more than fifteen times as many institutions which are under provincial control. We have no actual jurisdiction over post-prison work. We have jurisdiction over these convicts while they are in the penitentiary, but as soon as they get out they are no longer within our jurisdiction. That does not mean that we should not take any interest in what happens; and it does not mean that we should not, with the Department of National Health and Welfare, endeavour to cooperate with the provinces and bring about, for instance, an application of the knowledge which has been acquired about mental hygiene. But that is not something which this house can deal with as its concern. We can be helpful, and we can endeavour to get the help of others, but we have not the jurisdiction to determine what is to be done in Canada about the matter. It is for that reason that I wanted someone who was recommended to me, who took all the "bugs" out of the military plans that were being prepared and had them workable before there were attempts made to implement them. I think that with that kind of advice we shall make real progress.


William Scottie Bryce: One further remark and I have finished. I am pleased that the minister has his commissioner appointed, and I hope I shall have the privilege of meeting him at Stony Mountain. I know that what I have said here to-night is true in every sense of the word, because I have visited this insti-
Supply-Justice

tution. The minister's deputy or assistant who spoke about going to Stonewall may not know that Stonewall is away in the other direction as far as the bus is concerned. The present government of Manitoba supplies a gaol bus and runs the warders to and from the provincial goal. The dominion government has far more money than the province; it should be able to do that too, until such time as material is available from the minister to build these new houses.


Thomas Langton Church: It is one of the cardinal principles of magna charta that the people shall take a large share in the administration of criminal justice. These institutions, whether rightly or wrongly managed, are managed by crown officers. I appreciate the difficulties which the minister and the officials of his department have in this connection, because, as the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe remarked, it is a work that does not bring much satisfaction; there is no occupation more open to criticism than that of those in charge, working all the time honestly, satisfying nobody.
There has been a marked increase in the criminal population. As members of the committee know, after every great war there is a great deal of trouble in dealing with this problem. Wars and rumours of wars and similar disturbances bring about a ' large increase in crime. The population of these penal institutions rose from 1,689 in 1919 to 3,803 at the last record, about the beginning of the war, and it is still going up by leaps and bounds.
There is an important public policy connected with this matter; so much so, that I wish to refer a few moments to-night to the inspection of these institutions. There is an act which relates to this matter; but the board of visitors, also the House of Commons and the Senate, might just as well be eliminated in this regard, because the method of inspection is a dead letter. Those confined in these institutions are forgotten. The public pay little or no attention to this problem.
I was chairman for seven years of a large police commission, and years ago, with Doctor Hastings, then the health officer, I visited one of the institutions in my own constituency of Broadview, the Toronto gaol. It was built not long after confederation. Doctor Hastings, then the health officer, and' I inspected it. Talk about any law of hygiene! Every known law of hygiene was violated. It is the same in all these institutions, federal, provincial and municipal, all over our province.
As I have said before, a federal prison commission was appointed in 1936. One of the

commissioners, Mr. Harry Anderson, who did much for prison reform, died shortly after his appointment. Visits by these commissioners were paid to every country in the world, and they brought in a report. The failure of the government of the day to introduce in Canada the Borstal system, which had such salutary results in the mother country some thirty years ago, has been criticized by all the synods and presbyteries in the country, by churches of all denominations, who have unanimously asked for some action. They look to this parliament for action. As I have said, the inspection is not what it should be. I appreciate the services of many of our officers. From our city we have as chief inspector, General Gibson, at the present time in Ottawa, a military man of sound judgment and good executive ability. But in my opinion the grand juries should be allowed to go once a year into these institutions that are under federal control, as they are allowed to inspect provincial penal institutions. When I was head of the police department in that city the grand jury in Hamilton on one occasion found three or four insane men in a certain institution. It is most important, in my opinion, that provision be made for inspection once a year of federal institutions by grand juries, as the late Chief Justice Meredith stated in the fall session some years ago in addressing the grand jury.
We might as well admit that we have no inspection worthy of the name. These institutions are inspected only by crown officers, and we might well inscribe over the door of everyone of these institutions the words that are found in Dante: "All hope abandon ye who enter here". I have spoken to some of the officers about the work done in these institutions, and I can find no reason why the report was not carried into effect. The war was pleaded as an excuse. I think the members of this house should take more interest in this question.
In the city of Toronto, away back in 1912, we established a gaol farm on Yonge street, North York, when we were going to close up the Toronto gaol, which was then a relic of the middle ages. The laws of public hygiene are unknown in many of these institutions. There are good officers and good men conducting that particular institution in Toronto, but they cannot properly handle all the work they have to do with the antiquated machinery at their disposal. There is one institution in Ottawa but it is in a favoured position. One of the evening papers in this city stated last fall that the $300,000 that is to be handed out to Ottawa as a subvention will be used to secure a new gaol and a new court house.

Supply-Justice
I should like to give the minister some constructive suggestions. Shortly before this house was called together there were a number of riots across Canada in. three institutions. The population in one of these institutions in Kingston and Collins Bay has increased considerably. A large number of military men have been brought back from Europe, some for minor offences, some for absence without leave and others for desertion, while there are thousands of others who have not yet been rounded up. I contend that under the present law they have no right to be housed in these institutions. They have been convicted of military offences, and the various wardens across Canada have no right under the present act to admit them. I suggest that they could bring action for damages in some cases in respect of such detention.
I wish to refer to another matter, and it is this. We are away behind the times in constitutional reform, in cabinet reform and in law reform. We have had no real law reform in this country. As a matter of fact, I have seen very little law reform since I was called to the bar a good many years ago. We are thirty years behind England. Little progress has been made in Canada in that direction in comparison with the mother country, where there is real reform. I suggest that one of the meanest acts ever passed was in connection with the imposition of "indeterminate sentences". In 1939 I introduced a bill dealing with this whole question. Provincial institutions could house convicted persons only for a year and three hundred and sixty-four days. That was the situation up to 1867 when these institutions were handed over to the government of Canada. I introduced my bill for the purpose of eliminating indeterminate sentences, which I contend are unfair. Indeterminate sentences were condemned severely by Mr. Justice Middleton, as will be found by reference to Ontario Law Reports of July, 1937, in the case of Rex versus Bond, at page 538. Why should a man be. kept indefinitely in prison, without hope of liberty, when he expects that in consequence of good conduct he may obtain his freedom? The fact is, however, that, under the indeterminate sentence, someone may come forward and report some conviction which the man had against him at some time or another, and the result is that the parole board turns down his application. The learned judge criticized the system in severe terms, and since that time it was also criticized) last year and the year before in the court of appeal of the province. He also referred to the Guelph 63260-174
institution. Various judges have condemned it in the strongest possible language and urged for a new institution for younger inmates.
All these law reports have been reported to the government, but nothing has been done about the matter. As I explained in introducing my bill in 1939, the Prisons and Reformatories Act gives the court jurisdiction to impose an indeterminate term in a reformatory. The bill proposes to substitute determinate for indeterminate sentences. The several expressions relating to "indeterminate sentence" are found in eighteen sections or subsections of the act, and the draftsman considers it inexpedient to amend each of such sections by a separate clause.
This bill would revert to the old law of sentences for a definite period only. The indeterminate legislation has definite period only. The indeterminate legislation has been condemned by many judges and magistrates as inhuman and illegal.
Canada's prisons at present are filled with youth, many first offenders, who have been unable to secure work. The lack of employment by cause and effect is one of the reasons for crime. Recently the appellate 'division of the supreme court of Ontario questioned the legality of such indeterminate legislation, since the provinces had only the right of providing confinement for one year and 364 days, and also condemned it on grounds of public policy. The law has not acted as a deterrent, nor is it reformative. It should be repealed, because in practice it confers on officials of these institutions the right to detain those who have not influence enough to have employment awaiting them at the end of a definite period, and gives to their decisions the force of statute law.
That state of affairs should not be tolerated and, as I have already stated, it was severely condemned. The government gave a list of inspectors three years ago. A great many of them have had a college education and all that kind of thing. In other words, they learn by experience; that is all. They know nothing about the work. Just fancy bringing in some outsider to become chief of a police force! At least they have to learn the business end of it. A representative from one of the large departmental stores came to see me some time ago. I said to him: "You cannot learn one department of your store in a day or two. How can you learn this business in a day?" This is one of the most important problems in the country. The report of the minister of March 31, 1945, shows that in the United States they have developed a programme of training young officers for this work, officers who have the

Supply-Justice

proper educational background. A great deal has been done in this regard. It is a most commendable thing. A few years ago the minister allowed the convicts to use the radio. That gave them some information from the outside world.
I believe that members of parliament should visit one or two of these institutions. A committee on legal law should be instituted in this house. They could make some visits and thereby strengthen the hands of the minister and his officers. I hope and trust that next year we shall not be pleading that the war prevented us from installing the Borstal system. As judges have pointed out, there is in Ontario no institution to which they can send an offender. I appreciate the good work that the minister and his officers have done, because he has a most difficult task. Anybody who has been a member of parliament for a few years must know that the hardest task in this house has been carried out by the Minister of Justice. He has given a great deal of time and thought to the matter, far more than any of us. I hope that something will be done, because I believe that this matter is one of the most important subjects with which we have to deal.


Thomas Reid: I have one question to ask the minister and a suggestion to make as well. First of all, may I say that I was pleased this evening to hear him remark that many of the suggestions and1 recommendations of the commissions which were supported by certain hon. members to-night were exaggerated. I remember the visit of the commissioner to the Pacific coast, and I could use a stronger word than "exaggerated". Before the minister implements the recommendations made in the report, I woud suggest that he had better wait until he has a report from the new commissioner who has been appointed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Appoint another royal commission.


Thomas Reid: No; I am not in favour of that. Judge Archambault should never have been appointed to the job to which he was appointed. He knew little or nothing at all about penitentiaries. Many of the recommendations were ridiculous. I know whereof I speak. I do not care who appointed him; I am saying that as a member of parliament.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: He was not alone in it.


Thomas Reid: He took charge of it. As a matter of fact he was the chairman of the commission and took an active part too. Perhaps I had better make my suggestion be-
TMr. Church.]
fore I ask my question. As a member of parliament I consider it my duty to visit occasionally the penitentiary which is located in my city. Like other hon. members I take the trouble to visit it four times a year, and I visit it without giving any warning to the warden in charge. I usually visit in time to see the convicts fed. I taste the food and ' examine it, and I say to hon. members that I hope I never get worse food in the remaining years of my life than I saw there. I brought a menu along with me. I wonder how many members of parliament have seen the menu.
I am going to make a suggestion with regard to the utensils which are used.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Take the menu up to the parliamentary restaurant; they need one.


Thomas Reid: I am glad the hon. member mentioned the parliamentary restaurant, because the food prepared in the New Westminster penitentiary is as good as any food one can get in the parliament buildings.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It could not be worse.


Thomas Reid: 
Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: May I suggest to the minister that we could not hear a word he said. We are as much interested in the information he gave as is the hon. member for New Westminster. I would ask the minister to repeat the information.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sorry. The statement I made was that the departments were requested to list with the Department of Reconstruction the public buildings they felt they should proceed with just as soon as it would be proper to proceed with public undertakings, and a new penitentiary for British Columbia was listed by the penitentiary department with the Department of Reconstruction.


Mr. LENNARD:: In connection with some remarks made by the minister about twenty minutes ago. I have before me a resolution passed unanimously by the chief constables association of Canada at London, Ontario, on August 24, 1945. It reads as follows:
Resolved that, in the opinion of the conference, there is a definite need for a policy to be formulated by the government of Canada in respect to the serious problem of the repeater criminal, whose activities are so largely responsible for crime in the dominion. We further suggest that a committee representative of all the prov-
63260-174i
inces be appointed to interview the hon. Minister of Justice at Ottawa to urge amendments to the criminal code to meet this menace.
I understand that this resolution was presented by a delegation of this association some time last fall. Has any consideration been given to it, or has any progress been made?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The recommendations with respect to the criminal code are among the various recommendations being considered.


Frank Exton Lennard: These recommendations are among those?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, and will be dealt with in the manner I have already described. The matter of repeater criminals, as the hon. member will realize, is something that will have to be dealt with through cooperation between the federal and provincial authorities, and it is one of the aims I have set before the penitentiary commissioner. I hope it will not be very long before I may be able to report that progress is being made in bringing about that degree of cooperation which will be beneficial.


Mr. KNIGHT:: I was pleased to hear the minister say a good word for his new commissioner. I believe he used the word "tactful"; he used the word "practical" and I hoped he might use the word "sympathetic," though I have no reason to believe that this adjective could not have been quite properly used also to describe the commissioner.
Perhaps some of our ideas in regard to the running of penal institutions in this country would be considered antiquated in other parts of the world. I should be interested to know from the minister the extent to which we have been appointing former military men to the top posts in penal institutions. I should like to register my opinion, for what it is worth, that the professional military type of mind should disqualify any man for the top position in any penitentiary. I say that with no desire to offend anyone. I do not believe, for instance, that the young men who volunteered to go overseas should be deprived of positions in our penitentiaries; but by the very nature of their inexperience and their youth they would not be taking these top positions to which I refer. I want to make myself perfectly clear on that. I am not saying that returned men should not take such junior positions. I think it has been well established that military discipline is not what is required in dealing with people in these institutions, where the emphasis should be upon correction; that is to say, upon correction from the point of view of reform of character, rather than mere maintenance of iron discipline. I think
Supply-Justice

I have noticed, as I expect other hon. members have, that sometimes those in charge of these institutions forget the object of them, forget the inmates and become buried in a mass of routine having to do with organization and administration, so that organization and administration become the thing and the inmates, whether of a school, a penal institution or what have you, are inclined to be forgotten. As far as I am concerned, the minister may consider this an appeal for the appointment of trained psychologists with great sympathy in their hearts for the unfortunate outcasts from society with whom they have to deal.


James Herbert Matthews: 
[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Labour Conditions
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 24, 1946.