1952-05-29

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. McCulloch.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I move:
That votes Nos. 420, 421 and 557 of the main estimates 1952-53, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.
At the present time this committee is dealing with housing, and these are the three items in the estimates that cover housing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, 26th May, 1952
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Thursday, the 29th May, at 6 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative)



AVIATION GASOLINE


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that on May 9 I made a statement regarding restrictions upon the consumption of aviation gasoline. This action was necessary because of decreased production in the United States brought about by a strike in
the petroleum industry. I am very pleased to be able to announce that on June 3 the restrictions on the use of aviation gasoline in Canada will be lifted. This action is in line with that taken in the United States. The situation there has improved very materially with the reopening of refineries in that country and it is expeoted that within due time this situation will be reflected in increased supplies available to Canadian users.



QUESTIONS


BEEF AND PORK


Mr. Wright:: 1.	What amounts of (a) beef; (b) pork, have been purchased to date for shipment to England under the new three-way arrangement?
2.	From what companies have purchases been made?
3.	What are the grades of beef and pork purchased, and the price paid for each such grade?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	(a) Beef, 11,164,064 pounds to May 23, 1952; (b) Pork, nil. Arrangements for shipment of pork have not yet been finalized. Shipments will be made from stocks now owned by agricultural prices support board.
2.	Alberta Meat Company, Vancouver; Pacific Meat Company, Vancouver; Union Packing Company, Calgary; Calgary Packers, Calgary; Canada Packers Limited, Calgary; Burns and Company Ltd., Calgary; Swift Canadian Co. Ltd., Calgary; F. Hunniset, Ltd., Toronto.
3.	Grades A, B, C, and D2 have been purchased to May 23. Prices for frozen beef, delivered Montreal for export are:
		Beef from	Beef from
		Alberta	Ontario
			and Quebec
		per lb.	per lb.
Grade	A .	.. 47 [DOT] 00 cents	48-60 centsGrade	B .	..46-65 "	48-15 "Grade	C .	...44-95 "	46-55 "Grade	D2 .	..38-85 "	40-45 "



MR. H. LOKKEN

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has Mr. H. Lokken (or Loken), at any time since January 1, 1948, been employed as a P.F.A.A. inspector or P.F.R.A. inspector in Saskatchewan? If so, between what dates was he employed?
2.	Is he now employed at such work?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1. Yes as a P.F.A.A. fieldman.
1948, nil
1949, Aug.		12 to Oct. 23	
1950,	Sept.	19 to Dec. 5	1951,	Oct.	14 to Dec. 8	1952, Jan. 16 to Feb. 6-Apr. 6 to May 15. 2.	No. 3.	Fieldman.	4.	(a) Wages days	(b) Expenses days1939	781940	
93	931941	132	1321942	141J	141J1943	146	1461944	136|	136J1945	1171946	1031947	131948	nil1949	45i1950	461951	291952	
25i	25J5.	(a) Wages	(b) Expenses1939	$ 471.621940	665.631941	930.501942	992.791943	887.411944	1,015.741945	1,128.441946	
678.00	943.571947	
91.00	141.631948	nil1949	
318.50	505.271950	471.621951	379.581952 6. Nil.	
204.00	247.69



ARMED FORCES


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	What is the term of enlistment in the active army?
2.	Are any exceptions made in respect to men volunteering for service in Korea?
3.	What minimum of uncompleted service would be required for a man to be dispatched to Korea or Europe?
4.	How long are men required to serve in Korea or Europe?

5.	Are men returned from overseas service to Canada on completion of their term of enlistment, or must they remain overseas until the period required for overseas service is completed?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	Three years.
2.	Men of the Canadian army active force who have served a tour of duty in Korea may obtain their release without completing their term of enrolment or re-engagement.
3.	Four months.
4.	Korea-One year plus or minus a month. Europe-Single men two years, married men one year, plus or minus a month.
5.	Men serving overseas when their term of enrolment or re-engagement expires complete the tour of duty overseas.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. While (Middlesex East):: 1.	In what year or years was the animal diseases research laboratory at Hull established?
2.	How many parcels of land comprise the entire property?
3.	What was the cost to the government of Canada of these above-mentioned properties?
4.	What was the cost to the government of Canada of the buildings, fences and other installations excluding equipment within the buildings?
5.	What was the cost to the government of Canada of all the equipment?
6.	How many people are employed to staff and maintain the laboratory and farm?
7.	What was the total amount of the payroll for the last fiscal year?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Can he assure the house that every effort is being made to avert threatened strikes of hotel employees at the Vancouver hotel, Vancouver, B.C., and at the Empress hotel, Victoria, B.C.?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: The hon. member advised me that he intended to ask a question in regard to the employees of the Vancouver hotel at Vancouver and the Empress hotel at Victoria. In answering I will deal first with the situation at the Empress hotel at Victoria. There is a dispute as to the terms of a new collective bargaining agreement between the employees and the management of the hotel. This hotel, being operated by a private corporation, is under the jurisdiction of the provincial

government of British Columbia and I am informed that the usual conciliation services have been extended by that government. However, I am also informed that the dispute still exists and the representatives of the employees have notified the hotel management that the services of the employees will be withdrawn at midnight on June 3.
In regard to the Vancouver hotel at Vancouver the situation is somewhat different in that this hotel comes under the jurisdiction of the federal authorities because of the nature of its ownership. Here too the negotiations between the union and the management have failed to bring about a settlement of the terms of a new contract. On the recommendation of my officers I appointed a conciliation board following the failure of direct negotiations. Two members of the board made a majority report and the third member made a minority report.
Representatives of the employees have notified me that the provisions of the majority report are acceptable to the employees. The representatives of the management have the matter under consideration. This morning I was advised by the national vice-president of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees and Other Transport Workers that the employees will withdraw their services from the Vancouver hotel at midnight, June 3, 1952. I have some hope that the parties may reach an agreement before the time set for the strike.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. What is the reason for the delay in removing the wreckage of the Burlington canal bridge?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: The question of the cause of delay in replacing the Burlington canal bridge recently wrecked is one that necessitated having to give consideration to the problem from two different angles, first the permanent replacement and second the temporary replacement, in this case the location of the temporary replacement, which undoubtedly will have a bearing on the permanent replacement, had to be given consideration. We had to contact interested parties such as the department of highways and the Hamilton harbour commission.
The question of the removal of the wrecked bridge is one that had to be given consideration from the standpoint of whether it was to be scrapped or an attempt made to put
Inquiries of the Ministry it back in its original location. This required considerable investigation of contractors' proposals with relation to both projects.
In connection with the removal we contacted all local qualified contractors and it was necessary to give considerable study to the method suggested and the price asked by each. It was only yesterday that we received a proposal from a contractor whose methods were considered satisfactory and whose price was materially below that of any of the other proposals. A start is to be made within a week and it is anticipated that the wreck will be removed in from three to four weeks. Plans and specifications are now ready covering a temporary pile trestle for which tenders will be called immediately and we will be in a position to proceed with construction thereof on completion of the removal of the wreckage.



INQUIRY AS TO RELAXATION OF CONTROLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. In view of recent press reports that there is a good chance for the early relaxation of controls on steel perhaps the minister would care to make a statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The difficulty about making any statement with regard to the relaxation of controls on steel arises from the fact that there is a possibility of a strike occurring in the steel industry in the United States. Aside from that there has been some easing in the supply of reinforcing steel and the regulations in that regard have been relaxed for buildings using only a small amount of that type of steel. Controls must be maintained as long as we require substantial imports from the United States under the controlled materials plan. There is no way in which Canadian users can qualify for imports from the United States except through the Department of Defence Production.
Supplies of structural steel and heavy steel plate are still difficult, probably as difficult as at any time in the last two years. Therefore, there is not much hope of relaxing the regulations in that regard until Canadian production comes in during the fourth quarter of 1952. We hope that then the situation of shortage will be materially eased.

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

Interim Supply



INTERIM SUPPLY

Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved:: 
Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I have no questions to raise in regard to this usual request, except that I would ask the minister whether the collections of government revenues up to the present time give any indication, as they did a year ago, of a surplus which eventually proved to be quite large. A year ago, almost to this very day, I pointed out to the minister that at that time there was already an indication of a big surplus, and asked him whether he

thought that was likely to give a guide for the year. I do not happen to have seen the figures for this year, so I would ask the minister if he could give them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I have not the figures. In point of fact, Mr. Chairman, I was discussing the matter the other day with my deputy minister. We proposed, at one time, to issue the figures for the first two months. There will be some change in the way in which the figures will be presented in this respect. Last year I found that there appeared to be considerable misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the actual results arising out of the fact that the larger charges come in for inclusion in the figures in the latter part of the year. It seemed to me that a more accurate picture would be given from month to month of the public accounts if some of these annual charges could be pro-rated throughout the year. I asked the controller of the treasury to look into that question to see if it could not properly be done.
I understand it is going to be done, and the first statement which comes out will reflect that suggestion. On the first question the hon. member asked me I am informed, although I have not seen the detailed figures, that as usual the first month of the year will show a surplus, since a large part of the payments which are made in that month are charged against the previous year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister, I take it, has not got these figures to give us at the moment?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am interested in the warning which the minister gave us, and which we have heard before. With deference, I would say that last year he was proven to be very wide of the mark.


Mr. Knowles:: We can also take it that, as usual, the various items provided in this bill, together with the items provided in the previous interim supply bill, do not in any case add up to twelve-twelfths?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


Mr. Graydon:: Before the resolution carries I should like to take this opportunity, if I may, to raise a question which I raised previously, and perhaps to amplify it slightly. The last time no answer was given, but I have no doubt that inadvertently the minister overlooked it. The question concerns the government use of the services of so many of our smaller business people, in both agriculture and industry, for the purpose of collecting government taxes. I raised the question before, and I raise it again now, to give the minister an opportunity of explaining that

situation. I was not raising it in any critical way, but it has been concerning me and I think it has concerned a good many .people that the government should be using so many people who can ill afford the expense to which they are put in the collection of government taxes.
I want to add to that another factor which has become more widespread than it used to be, because not only does the small fellow have to collect income taxes at the source for his two or three employees and keep an extra set of books in order to make accurate returns for the government, but in addition to that there is the question of sales taxes. In many instances the employer has to concern himself with these excise taxes as well as unemployment insurance, and it takes a great deal of .attention and causes a good deal of expense. On top of that, the bureau of statistics has walked in on the little businessman all over the country. I am not suggesting we should not have the information, but I am wondering whether or not all of that expense should be borne by the little fellows across the country who are having a difficult time to make ends meet.
I do not know whether the minister has seen the questionnaire sent out by the bureau, and I suppose he cannot be expected to look over every publication of the government, but if he does look at one he will find it is very intricate and difficult to answer. The questions not only include particulars about his business, but sometimes seem to go too far with respect to the information requested. All of these things have to be done at the expense of the little fellow, and I am wondering whether or not it is actually becoming discriminatory so far as our taxpayers are concerned. I should like to ask the minister for an explanation of that, but as I say I have not been unduly critical of it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I apologize to the hon. member. He raised the question the other day and I had intended to .answer it but 1 overlooked doing so. I take it he is referring to the obligation which is imposed on employers, for instance, to deduct taxes at the source and remit them to the Receiver General of Canada. The short answer to his question is, of course, that that is one of the obligations of citizenship. Our tax structure is progressive. The smaller businessman pays a smaller tax, whether he operates as an individual or whether he operates in corporate form. In the case of a corporation a small business, as we know, has a lower tax rate than the larger one.
If the businessman or other employer who is required to deduct and remit these taxes
Interim Supply
were to be compensated for that, we would have to impose additional taxes in order to pay that compensation. Those taxes would have to fall on him. Since the obligation is rather widespread throughout the country, I must say that I had never thought there was any real inequity in imposing what, as I say, seems to me to be an obligation of citizenship imposed upon those who are engaged in business undertaking. To the best of my recollection my hon. friend is the first one, since I have been the Minister of Finance, who has raised the question in the terms in which he has raised it. I have heard individual taxpayers, chiefly large corporations, complain about the expense they are put to in order to deduct taxes on wages at the source, to remit sales tax and so on. Admittedly that requirement does involve extra accounting and overhead charges; but as I have pointed out to all those who have complained, if we did not do that we would have to increase substantially our overhead charges ourselves and impose taxes to pay for them. On balance I think the system which is in force today, and which resembles that in force in other countries which have tax systems similar to ours, is a substantially fair one.


Gordon Graydon: I can understand the minister's point of view in that matter, but I think a halt must be called some time to the burden placed on people, particularly the little fellow in business, industry and agriculture. Year by year he is being loaded with further burdens. It is not only a question of collection of the income tax at the source but it also concerns other taxes and other reports, to the point that if you are going to be in business now-and nearly the same thing applies in agriculture-you have got to have some kind of accountant at your elbow in order to carry out the requirements and to meet the burdens that the government is imposing on you. I think a review should be made, either by the Department of Finance or by some other department, of the burdens which I have described and as to how they are actually affecting the little fellow across the country.
I am sure the government has not in mind discriminating in this matter. But on the other hand, unless somebody raises this question, this thing may go on to the point that it will become unbearable. I think now would be a good time for the government to call a halt on the burdens and the levies they are making in this way upon businesses generally, and to see whether or not some more simplified method can be found so that these

Interim Supply
people will not find the burden quite so heavy, both in the matter of expense and in work.
It is all very well for us here to adopt a big, high-level attitude about taxation and such things. But on the other hand, if you are in a little store, or on a farm, you have not all the facilities which government departments have to make these reports. It is one thing for somebody in an office in Ottawa to figure out some nice report that is to be made by somebody several thousand miles away; but that somebody is going to find it rather difficult, sometimes, to make that report especially without some assistance. I think a halt should be called before further burdens are imposed. I think a review ought to be made of the burdens that are at present in existence.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend can rest assured that we are constantly looking for ways to simplify and to improve our methods. May I assure him also that I share his concern about the little fellow.


Mr. Fleming:: Will the minister comment more specifically on that portion of the observations by the hon. member for Peel which related to the present activities of the dominion bureau of statistics which are increasing the obligations of many small businesses in the matter of making returns? We all regard the dominion bureau of statistics as a valuable governmental bureau; but in my experience, of late I have been receiving more complaints than previously about the multiplicity of returns which the bureau is requiring businesses to make. Does the minister care to comment specifically with regard to the matter?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not too familiar with the detailed operations of the bureau of statistics. It may or may not be the case that they are asking for more returns than they need. My hon. friend is as fully aware as I am of the vital part that up-to-date and accurate statistics play in the conduct of modern business and modern government. The completion by businessmen and individuals of returns to the bureau of statistics is an obligation of citizenship such as that to which I referred in regard to tax deductions. I feel sure, however, that the remarks which he has made will be noted by the dominion statistician; I will see that they are brought to his attention. I am speaking broadly now, but I do not believe that the bureau of statistics is unreasonable with regard to the type of information which it asks for from the Canadian businessmen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: While we are on this general item which provides for one-twelfth of all

the estimates of all departments, there is a question which I should like briefly to put again to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I note that he is still in his place and perhaps he might deal with my question if he is in a position to do so. It relates to the matter which I raised yesterday on the orders of the day, namely the declaration of martial law in South Korea by Syngman Rhee.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said yesterday that he had received no official information and therefore felt that it was not proper for him to comment at that time. I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs knows why some of us are concerned about events there, and I am sure that he shares our concern. We all know that the United Nations went into Korea in support of the principle that there ought to be collective resistance to aggression. But happenings in South Korea do have a bearing on the morale of the nations involved in the Korean conflict, and it does seem that the principles of democracy are being rather flagrantly violated by Syngman Rhee.
As the minister indicated to me yesterday, there is a United Nations commission on the unification and rehabilitation of Korea which has made suggestions to the government there concerning democratic processes, but that is about as far as the minister's answer went yesterday. The matter is very much in the news. The reports from South Korea are exceedingly disturbing. I wonder if the Secretary of State for External Affairs has had, since yesterday, any further report on the basis of which he might make a statement or whether he would comment on what attitude Canada takes toward this matter, and what the United Nations is doing about it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Before my colleague answers, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might raise this point? I am not sure whether or not it is in order, when we are in committee of supply, to discuss any question which may arise under the estimates. It may be that it is in order. I am not sufficiently expert in the rules to be sure whether it is or not. I have some doubts; but even if it is in order, I would hope that we do not embark upon general debate on interim supply. In my experience it has never been done when we are in committee. Some speeches have been made when the Speaker was in the chair, but not when we were in committee. I realize that we did not have to have a motion to go into committee of supply today; and for that reason I am not objecting to a reply being made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the question put by the

hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. But there are, of course, opportunities to ask such questions either on the orders of the day or when the estimates of the Secretary of State for External Affairs are under discussion. In any case, I am just appealing to the committee to try to keep the general debate down as much as possible and perhaps more strictly in line with expenditures rather than to discuss general questions of international affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was not trying to take undue advantage of what I think to be our right on this item to discuss almost anything; but the fact is that we are being asked to vote one-twelfth of the items of the Department of External Affairs.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is a question about which some of us are concerned. I had thought of repeating my question on the orders of the day today but since we were going into committee of supply, I thought it might be more suitable on both sides to ask it at this stage.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is all right.


Mr. Pearson:: On this occasion I do not want to deal at any length with the point which has been raised by my hon. friend, which indeed he raised yesterday. The reason will, I am sure, commend itself to him. We have followed with interest and with concern the reports that have appeared about political developments in South Korea, because we have now a special concern with that part of the world.
But before making any statement on the matter I want to be quite sure-and I know the house would want me to be quite sure- that the reports in the press are accurate, in their essential particulars at least. Therefore we have been making inquiries through sources that are open to us-we have no diplomatic representative in Korea-and we hope to have a report on this matter shortly.
Press reports indicate, as hon. members know, that martial law has been declared in South Korea by the head of the government there, on the ground that communist activity in Pusan and in other places makes such a declaration desirable at this time. Hon. members also know that there is to be an election in Korea in July. The relationship between these two developments is not quite obvious at the moment, but there may be one. However, I would prefer not to say anything more about it until we get a more authoritative report than is before us now. The estimates of External Affairs will be
Interim Supply
before the house shortly and I may be in a position to make a longer statement on the subject at that time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to add a word to what was said by the hon. member for Eglinton. No one has a higher appreciation of the bureau of statistics than I have, and yet, there is a danger that people who are expert and keen in what they are doing may just like to go on and on. I know the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not oblivious of this, but I would like to feel also that perhaps the finance department is keeping an eye on these things, because unless they are strictly controlled they can go on and on to infinity.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can assure my hon. friend that his remarks will be brought to the attention of the bureau of statistics; but I can also assure him that the finance department uses the material made available by the bureau of statistics to a very great extent.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson in the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on. account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1953, the following sums be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, namely:
1.	The sum of $263,348,439.58, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1953;
2.	The sum of $960,833.33, being one-sixth of the amount of items 37 and 179 of the said estimates; and
3.	The sum of $2,069,454.41, being one-twelfth of the amount of items 21, 24, 39 , 229, 232, 234, 236, 237 , 238 , 241, 242, 448, of the said estimates; as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 288, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st of March, 1953.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Interim Supply
On section 3-$960,833.33 granted for 1952-53.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Clause 3 is the clause which includes schedule A. In schedule A we are voting an extra one-sixth of the amount provided for freight assistance on western feed grains. I note, however, that if and when we vote the full amount of item 37 in the estimates it will be some $9 million less than was voted in the previous fiscal year. I understand the reason that there was so much more voted in the previous fiscal year was that part of it was in the main estimates and then another part was in the supple-mentaries.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That has always been the case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And that leads to my question. Can the minister say whether it is intended to provide additional funds for this purpose in the supplementary estimates this year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That matter has not yet been considered in cabinet. As my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, indicated yesterday, the practice in previous years has been to include in the main supplementaries in June whatever amount was decided upon for the coming crop year, and I have no doubt that that course will be followed again this year.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-$2,069,454.41 granted for 1952-53.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I have one question on clause
4.	This clause relates to schedule B, and I would ask the minister to look at item 242 in that schedule. I admit to him quite frankly that my question is based on curiosity. I would like to know what is seasonal about item 242 that makes it necessary to vote an extra one-twelfth at this time. I would think that the weatherman's job is a year-round job and not just a seaonal one.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, offhand that would seem to be logical. But, speaking from memory, the dominion observatory carries on various functions, which include the sending out of parties in connection with meteorological data. I can only say that I am relying upon the assurance given to me by the officers of my department who check the operations of these estimates that there are certain activities of this branch which are seasonal in character.


Mr. Fraser:: Is this the time when they send out university students?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend may be quite right in that.


Mr. Pearkes:: May I say a word regarding the dominion observatory or the astrophysical

observatory located at Saanich. They have done extremely good work there during the past year, conducting a large number of student activities and lectures. The observatory is attended by thousands of people during the year, a great many of whom go out there during the summer months. Therefore I am not surprised that there is now a request for a somewhat larger amount of money at this time. I welcome this opportunity of giving some measure of praise for the work being done by that observatory. I believe they have discovered a large number of new stars in the past year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sure the officers of the department will be gratified to read the tribute paid by the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson in the chair.
Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Greenwood was asking some questions yesterday with regard to temporary employees of the Department of Justice. I have here some figures in relation to those employees.
The estimates provide for 44 temporaries, four of whom have been made permanent since the estimates were drawn up. Of the remaining 40, three are eligible for permanency and will likely be made permanent in due course. Eight are employed in the minister's office, and are not ordinarily eligible for permanent appointment. Eight are married women who after marriage remained on on a temporary basis, and are ineligible for permanency. Eight are not qualified for permanency because of a lack of the necessary service. Thirteen are not qualified for permanency because they have not qualified by examination.
I believe this accounts for all of them. The hon. member also raised the question as to the difference in their terms of employment. I am informed that these are the main differences:
Employees who are permanent are contributors under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, while the others whose terms of employment are on a temporary basis pay four per cent or five per cent of their salaries into the retirement fund. On leaving the

service members of the temporary class receive back the total of their contributions to this fund. Then, in the event of their later becoming permanent, the amount to their credit in the retirement fund is transferred, to make their pensions applicable as from the time at which they entered the temporary service.
The permanent employee, after ten years of service, may become eligible, depending upon the circumstances, to receive superannuation upon retirement. Incumbents of, for example, class 2 stenographers, temporary, or any other classified position, may be either temporary or permanent employees, and salaries and hours of work are identical in respect of both. The temporary employee, upon being certified in all other respects as permanent, has to pass the same health examination the permanent employees pass when they are appointed.


The Deputy Chairman:: We will now proceed to item 175.
175. Administration of justice, miscellaneous expenditure, including expenses of litigated matters, $21,200.


Mr. Fulton:: Yesterday, just before six o'clock, I made reference, under this item, to the matter of the appointment of judges, and particularly to an article by the president of the Canadian Bar Association which appeared at page 28 of the Canadian Bar Review for January of this year. It was agreed there was not time enough to embark upon a discussion last night. I should like now, therefore, to return to this subject, to make some observations!, and to ask the minister if he would comment upon them and upon the article in general.
There is no cause to explain why members of the House of Commons, particularly those who are also members of the bar, should bring this matter up for discussion, particularly in the light of General Clark's very pertinent observations; because there is, as he points out and as I am sure the minister and most hon. members would agree, no matter of greater importance than to ensure that only men of the highest calibre should be appointed to positions on the bench.
I am not going to base my remarks in this connection solely upon accusations of improper practice by the present government. Indeed, if I were to do so I think the minister's answer would be to attempt to show that other governments have been as bad as this one-and probably he would say they have been worse. If the minister or anyone else were to make that answer, then my reply to him would be that two wrongs do not make a right. When we are discussing the maintenance of the independence of the judiciary,
Supply-Justice
and the necessity for high standards of qualification by those who are appointed to the bench-qualifications which should be quite removed from any question of political affiliation-it would be no answer to a criticism on that score to say that the practice had prevailed in the past, and that the standard of requirements had been lowered by other governments. To do so would be but to admit that a bad practice does exist at the present time.
Without going further on this tack, I think it cannot be denied that the vast majority, indeed practically all of the judges appointed in recent years, and for many years back, have been lawyers who, at the time of their appointments, held the same political affiliations as the party in power. To this extent there is justification for the warning frequently sounded in the house by the hon. member for Lake Centre, that we must never allow the condition to develop wherein the chief consideration in the matter of qualification for appointment to the judiciary is that of political fitness rather than legal attainments.
In this regard the remarks of General Clark, as contained in the article to which I have referred, are of particular interest. Since he is president of the Canadian Bar Association, in addition to being a lawyer of great eminence, his remarks are entitled to the serious consideration of the house.
I am going to take the liberty therefore of quoting quite extensively from his article, and particularly of emphasizing those points in it with which I agree. I should like to commence by reading a general statement of General Clark's to be found at page 30 of the Canadian Bar Review. It is as follows:
The support given by the bar of this country to the bench is traditional. The example of the bar has been emulated by the people as a whole. British justice is something we treasure. The history of the administration of justice in British countries has been such that it is the common belief of the people that the highest interests of the country are dependent, perhaps more dependent on the judiciary than on any other institution in our democracy.
That is a statement of the position with which I am quite certain we all agree. It seems to me the very statement of that principle indicates the supreme importance which must be attached to this question of maintaining the independence of the judiciary. After referring to the resolution dealing with this subject passed by the Canadian Bar Association at its annual meeting in 1949, General Clark goes on to refer to the position of a former very great prime minister of this country and) a very great lawyer, the late Lord Bennett. He points out that Lord Bennett himself had said that he found it extremely

Supply-Justice
difficult to follow the ideal that legal eminence and qualifications alone should be considered in making appointments to the bench. The late Mr. Bennett, as he then was, said that he deprecated the sort of political pressure that was sometimes applied with respect to this matter. After making that reference, the president of the bar association continues as follows, as reported on page 32 of this article:
I believe that the present Prime Minister, now the association's honorary president, and the president, and the Minister of Justice are likewise deeply convinced that the welfare of Canada demands that men of the highest character, and endowed with the best brains that can be found in the profession, should be selected in making appointments to the bench. I am satisfied that no prime minister or minister of justice has ever looked with equanimity upon pressure from the political machine and upon public service as a proper justification for a person who is being entrusted with the power of life and death over the subject. I can conceive of nothing more subversive to the interests of the state than that pressure from those concerned with political expediency and party loyalty should be the determining factor in appointments to the bench. I say with the deepest conviction that politicians would not dare to intervene in the way they do if the bar of Canada assumed the role of leader of public opinion in this regard, and I am convinced that the prime minister and minister of justice, of whatever party may be in office, will readily subscribe to this principle if the bar acts with determination.
I have included the last sentence of that quotation particularly for the reason that, as I will point out in a moment, I feel there is a twofold responsibility in this matter, first, that of the government, and,1 second, that of the bar itself. After making these general comments on the position in Canada and stating in effect what is indisputable, namely, that appointments to the bench in Canada have unfortunately in many cases been far from free from political considerations and implications, General Clark then goes on to refer to the situation in England. He has this to say:
I have made personal Inquiries regarding appointments to the bench in England. Some ten years ago a then English practitioner told me confidentially that he was giving serious consideration to a suggestion by the lord chancellor that he accept an appointment to the bench. He was wrestling with the offer because he wanted to continue in practice. I inquired why that should worry him, and he replied that it was a tradition at the bar of England that if a man was offered an appointment to the bench he accepted it and sacrificed the emoluments of practice. Since he had been a member of parliament on the opposite side of politics to the government of the day, I wondered why the lord chancellor would offer him an appointment.
I pause there to observe that that very comment of the president of the Canadian Bar Association, namely, "since he had been a member of parliament on the opposite side of politics to the government of the day, I wondered why the lord chancellor would

offer him an appointment", indicates how in general the practice-and the impression that is gained with respect to the practice-in Canada concerning appointments to the bench differs widely from that in England. General Clark went on to say:
He replied that political affiliations made no difference whatever in appointments to the bench and he went on to say that the lord chancellor kept close track of the qualifications of practising barristers and their suitability for judicial office; he could not recall an instance where an appointment could have been characterized as political.
Last summer when I was in England I made further inquiries of a source that was thoroughly familiar with appointments since 1946. X was informed that the then lord chancellor, Lord Jowitt, had since 1946 appointed 70 per cent of the judges of England and only one of them had belonged to his own political party. The lord chancellor had been heard to say that nothing would cause him greater embarrassment than the appointment of members of his own party to the bench. I inquired what would occur if political pressure were brought to bear on behalf of a prospective appointee. The answer was that it would be ignored.
It is undeniable that the position in this country is vastly different from that in England where on the basis of this information a Labour lord chancellor, who had appointed 70 per cent of the judges of England, had appointed only one from the ranks of his own political party. The answer to that situation cannot be found in the statement that there are not very many lawyers in England of eminent qualifications who subscribe to the Labour party because the fact is there are many. It is a fact most significant and worthy of comment as illustrating the impartiality and the high standard followed in that country that only one out of all these appointments made by Lord Jowitt was that of an individual who belonged to his own political party.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is that the kind of impartiality you are asking for in political appointments, where the government makes one from their own party and all others from the opposition?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course that is the sort of political comment I might have expected the Minister of Trade and Commerce to make at this point.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You got it then.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point I am making, and which the minister obviously fails to appreciate, is that it speaks very highly of the system in England, and it certainly shows a degree of impartiality one would never expect from him or some others of his type in this government. In making these appointments only one was made from the membership of the party in power.


Mr. MacDougall:: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


John Lorne MacDougall: I am quite familiar
with the quotations the hon. member for Kamloops has given with respect both to the situation that Lord Bennett found rather unpleasant-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is this a question or is the hon. member merely wanting to state something?


John Lorne MacDougall: I am going to ask a
question. I am also quite familiar-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the hon. member would not mind coming to his question.


John Lorne MacDougall: I will come smack bang right to it. General Clark was a member of this house for three parliaments.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry, I do not mind answering the hon. member's question but-


John Lorne MacDougall: I am asking a question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -I wish the hon. member would come to his question.


John Lorne MacDougall: My question is this: If the technique-


Mr. Hodgson:: Not "if", ask your question.


John Lorne MacDougall: -as suggested by General Clark was adopted would we be sure that, if the Liberal party was out of power and the Conservative party was in power, they would follow the principle adopted by Lord Jowitt?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was hoping that it would not be necessary to deal with too many questions of a political nature. If my hon. friend and others will restrain their impatience a little longer they will see that I am going to deal with the basis upon which selections to the bench should be made and which I think would be highly satisfactory to all parties. Therefore I shall put off answering my hon. friend's question until a little later because I think he will then find a satisfactory answer to the point which he has raised. But I can say this: I am confident that when the Conservative party is elected to power it will appoint lawyers to the bench only on the basis of their legal qualifications and fitness for the position in question. Whatever be the political party in whose ranks such men are to be found, the principle to be followed must be to appoint the man most qualified.
The inescapable implication of what is contained in this article and what we know from our observations is that unfortunately the desirable standards have not always been followed in this country. It seems to me that there are two considerations which we should keep in mind. First, the government should approach the problem of making appointments to the bench on an absolutely impartial 55704-170
Supply-Justice
basis and not have as their first consideration the political affiliation of the person to be appointed. I think that duty goes without saying.
The reasons for it, although they have always been urgent, are of extreme urgency at the present time in view of the fact that we have abolished appeals from the Supreme Court of Canada to the privy council. That fact is significant in many ways, perhaps the most significant being that the Supreme Court of Canada is now the final custodian of the constitution of Canada. As the minister knows, there are many divergent opinions as to the interpretation of the constitution, particularly sections 91 and 92. In view of the peculiar position of this country with different races, different languages and different minority interests, it would be nothing less than catastrophic if the decision of constitutional questions were to rest with judges whose appointment had been based on their political affiliations.
I hope no one will say that in the remarks I am making I am condemning the calibre of those who now constitute the courts of our country. I am simply making a statement of general principle. I think that the answer to that criticism, if it ever be made, will be found in what I shall have to say in just a few minutes. But I do want to point out that it was never more important to make certain that we maintain the independence and high calibre of those appointed to judicial office in this country. Not only is there a duty upon the government in this connection; there is also a duty upon the members of the bar which is the second consideration upon which I should like to hear the comments of the minister. I was particularly impressed by the statement of General Clark with reference to the attitude of members of the bar in England to this question, and I repeat one passage as follows:
It was a tradition at the bar of England that if a man was offered an appointment to the bench he accepted it and sacrificed the emoluments of practice.
That tradition and duty apparently is accepted by the bar of England and I think it is incumbent upon our bar to ponder seriously accepting the same responsibility. I cSn appreciate the desire of the minister, in bringing into effect the recent salary increases, to remove some of the obstacles which might otherwise be felt by members of the bar to exist in connection with the acceptance of this type of appointment.
There is one other consideration which I think is important, that is, the duty of the government not only to be impartial with respect to these appointments but to maintain the independence of the judiciary after

Supply-Justice
the appointments have been made. I am not going to go into this question in any detail except to repeat what has been said before, something to which I fully subscribe.
I think the minister and the government should avoid so far as possible-and I feel it should be possible to avoid it completely -the appointment of judges to commissions dealing with problems having a political implication.
I do not mean that you can divorce politics, that you can put them in a vacuum. I realize that many problems have political implications. However, I think the minister knows what I mean when I refer to problems having political implications. I refer to problems which by their very nature are subject to political controversy in the house and throughout the country. I am strongly of the opinion that the appointment of judges to commissions dealing with matters of that kind has a most unfortunate effect in lowering the esteem and regard in which our bench is held throughout the country.
There are just two thoughts to which I should like to refer in conclusion. May I refer first to the resolution of the bar association passed at Banff in 1949. I think it is here that the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard will find an answer to his question. In that year the Canadian Bar Association passed this resolution:
Whereas it is the desire of the profession that the best qualified members thereof be appointed to judicial positions,
Therefore be it resolved that the government of Canada be requested to consult with a committee consisting of the chief .justice of the province and the chief justice of the trial division and representatives of the benchers of the law society in the province mentioned before making any appointment to the bench for that province.
I should like to ask the minister to what extent that resolution has been followed in the appointments which have been made to the bench since the date of its adoption by the bar association. As I say, I think my hon. friend will find an answer to his question right there. I am urging that that recommendation be followed by the government in all appointments to the bench.
Of course it would be highly absurd for anyone to suggest that the only qualified lawyers for appointment to the bench would be those belonging to the opposition party, but the suggestion is just as absurd that the only lawyers qualified for appointment to the bench are members of the party in power. Surely the proper procedure to follow is to consult with those who are best able to know the qualifications of persons in the province in question, that is, members of the bench of the province and benchers of the law society. Then, having consulted

with them, having taken their recommendations, let political considerations be left out of the picture entirely. I am not going so far as to say for a moment that any government should be criticized simply because it appoints to the bench a member who happens to support that government. To put the appointment beyond criticism, however, surely it is not too much to ask that before the appointment is made the opinion of those best qualified to know should be sought. This is not to suggest, either, that the government should abdicate its responsibilities in the matter. The responsibility for the final decision will rest just as squarely on the government under that system as it does now. All we are asking is that the government receive these recommendations and give consideration to them, rather than give greater weight, as appears to have been done sometimes in the past, to political considerations.
The other principal thought that I should like to leave with the committee and with the minister is this. Towards the conclusion of his article, General Clark said this, as found at page 34:
What are the practical steps towards the objective I have outlined, that is the objective of appointment to the bench being entirely impartial? First and foremost is the creation of a tradition within the bar of Canada that it is the duty of the practitioner to accept judicial appointments when offered. Could such a tradition be created in Canada?


Mr. Lesage:: How can you force an appointment on a man who does not want it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry that a man who is a lawyer himself should have so completely missed the point of my remarks. If he has, perhaps my remarks have not been expressed too clearly. If he has found my remarks difficult to follow, I suggest that he read the article by General Clark. No one is suggesting that anyone could be forced from without to accept an appointment. The whole point of the remark is that there should be a tradition in the bar of Canada which, of itself, would compel the person to whom it is offered to accept it. For the benefit of the hon. member who interrupted, I am going to read this passage again.
First and foremost is the creation of a tradition within the bar of Canada that it is the duty of a practitioner to accept a judicial appointment if it is offered. Could such a tradition be created in Canada? I believe so. It exists in Great Britain. There, a man can refuse an offer once, but if he declines a second time it is my understanding that the appointment is not offered again and that he is left with the feeling that he has failed to recognize and live up to an important tradition.


Alphonse Fournier: That tradition exists here too.


Mr. Harkness:: It is a different kind of tradition, though.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I recall that we in this house have heard the Minister of Justice speak of the difficulty he has had in persuading lawyers to accept appointments.


Mr. Croll:: Not the third time or the second time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He was not speaking of the difficulty of persuading Conservative lawyers to accept an appointment either, or Liberal lawyers but lawyers in general. Out of the words of the Minister of Justice himself, the Minister of Public Works will get his answer. I believe that is one of the prime difficulties standing in the way of this matter of impartiality. I want to be fair in this matter, and it is for that reason I have been at pains to suggest that in my view there is a twofold responsibility. There is a responsibility resting upon the government to be impartial in their choice of appointments to the judiciary. Then, the bar, together with the bench, should be consulted and should assist in making it possible for impartiality to be shown and to enable the best man to be appointed by building up a tradition within its own ranks that appointment to the bench is not only an honour to the person appointed, but that acceptance of the offer is incumbent upon every member of the profession, because only by doing so can a lawyer really live up to the oath which he took at the time of his call of admission, the oath to maintain the best traditions of his profession and to preserve and further the interests of his country and of his monarch.


Mr. Hunter:: There are a few remarks I should like to make in view of the very able address to which I have just listened by the hon. member for Kamloops. I think it was a very idealistic speech, and it is possible that, from a theoretical point of view, what he suggests would be quite desirable. However, I would suggest that his ideals do not conform entirely with the facts. While he has assured us he believes that his own party would make appointments from that point of view, I wonder if he can tell me how many Liberal magistrates have been appointed in Ontario since the Conservative party has been in power? If any have been appointed, it is beyond my knowledge, and possibly they did not know what his politics were.
I am not suggesting that what he has said would not be a desirable tradition, but I say it would not work. I am not suggesting that appointments by the Minister of Justice is the finest method that can be devised;
55704-170 i
Supply-Justice
obviously, mistakes could be made. But I know of no other system which would work in this country. 1 cannot conceive, for instance, of having appointments made or abetted by the law society of Upper Canada. I do not see how that gets rid of politics. The people who are benchers do not completely divorce themselves from politics because they are benchers. I have received many letters in the past from people who were running for office as benchers asking my support in their election.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But not on
the grounds of your politics.


John William Gordon Hunter: On the ground that they are running for office. I do not follow, either, why that would divorce the thing from politics. Similarly, I do not feel that the bar association is in a position to select or approve those candidates. I do not see that their knowledge is any greater than-I do not think it is as great as-that of the Minister of Justice. I was at that meeting where the resolution was passed. While it was passed unanimously, a very small percentage of the bar of Canada was in attendance. My recollection is that there were only about 25 in the room at the time the resolution was passed. I do not think it can be regarded as something that represented the inclinations or desires of every member of the profession.
What is happening in England is perhaps a very suitable system for England. 1 do not think that because something happens in England it necessarily happens here. They have other customs, other traditions, and this is not England. 1 am very fond of England, as I know many of the members here are, but I am much fonder of Canada. 1 think that Canada is a distinct country which will establish its own traditions. It has done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. The only point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that while I would hesitate to criticize the hon. member for Kamloops for suggesting this idealistic measure, I do not think that as a matter of practice it would function in this country at all. I think it would be quite impractical. I do not think it would achieve what he hopes it would achieve.
My observation of the appointments that are made is that they are of a very high calibre. I do not know any judges who have been appointed since I have been here whom I would criticize in the sense that they did not have sufficient legal standing or that they were not competent to carry out then-duties. From my knowledge of the minister, I

Supply-Justice
am quite sure that when future appointments are made they will be of the same high calibre.


Gordon Graydon: You might be one of them yourself.


John William Gordon Hunter: I am not suggesting that I should be one.
The point I am making is this. I think that the inherent defects, from a theoretical point of view, are more than compensated for by the fact that from a practical point of view the system has worked, that we have good judges, and that we have ended up with a high-calibre bench. While I like to listen to the suggestions of the hon. member for Kamloops on the subject, I believe that in practice they would not work.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, following up the remarks of the last speaker-


David Arnold Croll: This is on the subject of judges.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Who are you to judge? The Good Book says: Judge not, that ye be not judged. Following up the remarks of the last speaker, who referred to magistrates and appointments in the province of Ontario, I should like to ask if he knows of one magistrate who went out when the Conservative government came into power following the Liberal government of Mr. Hepburn, when the whole province was loaded with Liberals? Not one of them was let out. They all held their jobs.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: No; they did not.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I am not talking to you. Judge not, that ye be not judged. You look after your own Ottawa, redistribution and a lot of other things. X should like to ask the minister one question. Is he going to appoint Walter Thomson, of the late Liberal party in the province of Ontario, to a judgeship in Peterborough which he is looking for?


Alphonse Fournier: What do you think?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Do not forget that I said, "the late Liberal party". He was talking about lawyers in the province of Ontario receiving judgeships. According to the last vote, if there is any lawyer in Ontario who is not mixed up with politics in connection with one party or another, there are not many left that are Liberal; at least, they do not admit it if they are.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, this matter is of such great importance that, before the item is passed, I think it is really essential that I

should say something concerning it. I am indeed indebted to the hon. member for Kamloops for having raised the matter. I had previously read in the Canadian Bar Review the report of the address of General Clark to the Edmonton section of the Canadian Bar Association upon this subject.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Alberta section.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Knowing General Clark and respecting him as I do, I had hoped that I might have the opportunity of discussing with him the remarks which he had made before it might become necessary for me to reply publicly to them. Perhaps it is all for the best, however, that the hon. member for Kamloops has made necessary that reply today, because there is no gainsaying the truth of the passage which he quoted from General Clark's speech concerning the great importance of the judiciary in our democratic system of government. As one can see from the remarks of the last speaker, this is a topic which rather tempts some into political partisanship. The whole case of General Clark and of the hon. member for Kamloops is that political partisanship has played an inordinate part in the appointment of judges in this country. That being so, I want to do my very best today to treat of this partisan subject in a manner which will be as nonpartisan as I can possibly make it.
The hon. member for Kamloops has made a selection of excerpts from the speech of General Clark which are excellent, as far as they go, but which if I may say so, are not quite a complete cross-section. I should like to deal not only with those which he has mentioned but also with certain others that I think are relevant to this matter, for General Clark's statement is one which deserves a serious reply; and perhaps as suitable an official as any to make that reply is myself.
General Clark's central thesis is that our system of judicial appointments in this country is unworthy; and he makes it quite clear that its unworthiness consists in that the recommendations of members of parliament belonging to the party in office are given far too great weight in the making of such appointments. In support of that thesis he cites certain facts, to which I shall refer as I go along, and the probative value of which I question. He supports the Canadian Bar Association resolution which the hon. member for Kamloops has just quoted, namely:
Therefore be it resolved that the government of Canada be requested to consult with a committee consisting of the chief justice of the province and the chief justice of the trial division and representatives of the benchers of the law society in the province mentioned before making any appointment to the bench of that province.

The hon. member lor Kamloops has pointed up this resolution by suggesting that not only should they be consulted but that their recommendation should be taken.
The first point that I make in that connection is that by section 96 of the British North America Act it is provided that, and I quote:
The governor general shall appoint the judges of the superior, district, and county courts in each province . . .
Under the constitution that we have in this country the governor general always acts upon the advice of his responsible ministers, and these do not include the chief justices or law society benchers who, indeed, are occupied in discharging an entirely distinct function of government from the executive, namely, the judicial function.
The general trend of General Clark's speech is that the legal profession, acting through the law society in a manner which I think it may be fairly said that he does not too clearly delineate, should influence public opinion in this matter to devise a formula under which the control of the selection of judges would to a greater or lesser degree be influenced by if not vested in the chief justices and the benchers of the law society.
I take issue with General Clark and with the hon. member for Kamloops in this matter upon the ground that our constitution places the full responsibility for making appointments on the government, acting solely on the advice of its responsible ministers; and that this responsibility, in my view, should not be delegated or watered down by official and formal consultation with chief justices or representatives of the bar who, in this connection, constitutionally and politically, are not responsible to anyone.
In saying that, I do not intend to say or imply that we should not consult judges and members of the bar in connection with judicial appointments. As a matter of fact, ever since I have had the honour to be Minister of Justice I have continually consulted with individual members of the bars of the various provinces, with judges and, in certain cases, with chief justices concerning the suitability of such candidates as we had under consideration, just as I consult with members of parliament and with Canadian citizens generally who I think have something to contribute upon this same subject.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister permit a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, surely.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With regard to the minister's reference to consultation with members of parliament, may I ask whether the minister has ever consulted, in connection with the
Supply-Justice
matter which he is now discussing, any member of parliament other than a member of his own party?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With regard to the suitability of candidates, yes. Our purpose in consultation in the appointment of judges is to find out in a specific case whether, we will say, John Doe whose appointment we are considering is a good counsel; whether he is of good character; whether he is a good citizen; in a word, whether he possesses those qualifications which any judge should have; and I can assure my hon. friend that if he has been engaged in legal work in the courts, a lawyer who may belong to the Conservative party may be in the best position of all to appraise the legal ability of the candidate for judicial appointment.
I deprecate this contention that representations made by members of parliament in this connection should not be seriously considered. I think it is a sign of political immaturity, which is gradually disappearing, and at an increasing rate of late years, that the submission should be made that a person who has enjoyed the confidence of his fellow citizens to the extent that they have elected him to represent them in parliament should not be trusted to express a disinterested and intelligent opinion concerning the qualifications of other persons for judicial or other office.
In discussing these issues, let me admit at once-and in this respect I agree with General Clark, and with the hon. member for Kamloops, although I do not by any means go anything like as far as they do in that direction-that the present system of appointing our judges is not perfect. But I do contend that whether under Conservative governments or under Liberal governments our present system is very much better than any person hearing General Clark's speech, or listening to my hon. friend, the hon. member for Kamloops this afternoon, would ever think that it was.
Indeed, this very point can be inferred from a careful reading of General Clark's own statement. He refers, and quite properly, to the great prestige which the bench of Canada enjoys today. The hon. member for Kamloops likewise referred to that prestige. General Clark puts it this way.
Were it not for the fact that our profession is composed largely of men of character, integrity and ability, it would have been impossible for the bench of Canada to have achieved that prestige
Now, sir, I grant at once-as a lawyer I have no difficulty in doing so-the character, the integrity and the ability of our profession. But I do suggest at the same time that if the method of judicial appointment in Canada

Supply-Justice
were as bad as General Clark and the hon. member for Kamloops think and say that it is, then it would1 be most unlikely indeed for the bench of Canada to have enjoyed its present prestige, even in the face of the great integrity, character and ability of our legal profession; for according to General Clark, and I think according to the hon. member for Kamloops, the appointments to the bench are hot made upon the basis of character, integrity and ability but are determined largely by considerations, to use the language which was quoted this afternoon, of political expediency and party loyalty, which are the determining factors in the appointments to the bench.
General Clark, in a selection from his remarks that the hon. member for Kamloops chose not to quote, said that he had been a member of parliament himself and he knew the system well. Well, sir, I have been in public life for 25 years now, and during that time, in the dual capacity of a lawyer and a politician, I have made a few suggestions, not many, concerning the appointment of judges. I can honestly say that when I made those to the then minister of justice I thought and intended that I was making those recommendations and suggestions on the basis of merit. Some of them, I am sorry to say, were ignored. In other cases, the man whom I recommended was appointed, although I do not know whether it was on my recommendation. But in those cases in which the appointments were made, I do not know of a single instance in which the judge concerned did not give an excellent account of himself. Yet according to the thesis which has been developed this afternoon, I possessed excellent qualifications as a lawyer to make that recommendation, but as a politician my disqualification for making those recommendations would cancel out my qualification as a lawyer. That is the thesis we are asked to accept.
During the past three and a half years I have been in a position in which General Clark's alleged abuses, if they existed in fact, would have unavoidably come to my attention. I cannot agree, sir, for one moment that the impressions which General Clark formed as a member of parliament himself are accurate at the present time. In fact I know that his impressions are not accurate as of present conditions. Yet I applaud his good faith and the propriety of his making his speech; for these are matters which, in the public interest, should be discussed with the candour with which he has discussed them, and with which the hon. member for Kamloops has discussed them this afternoon, and with which I shall endeavour to discuss them.
General Clark referred, as did the hon. member for Kamloops, to the late Prime Minister Bennett's desire to make judicial appointments upon the basis of merit alone, and to the observation of Mr. Bennett's secretary, Mr. MacLean-and I quote:
That while Mr. Bennett would like to make merit the chief consideration he had found instead that party, race, religion, occupation and geographic location of the nominee are more important than his qualifications. He (the Right Honourable Mr. Bennett) dislikes this deference to political sentiment, and he has said so repeatedly. Appointments made by the party for party reasons are anathema to him. He wants a man of integrity, of capacity, and if such a man happens to be a political enemy, that makes no difference.
My comment upon these idealistic observations is that if a comparison were made between the number of Liberals appointed during the period from 1930 to 1935 when the Bennett government was in power with the number of Conservatives appointed during the period 1935 to 1940 when the Liberal government was in power it will probably be found-I have not bothered to make such a count because I do not engage in invidious comparisons of that sort

that the percentage in each case was fairly uniform. I am rather inclined to think that it would favour the probity of our party, but maybe that is a bias on my part. It would be fairly uniform and would constitute perhaps the best available argument in support of General Clark's thesis.
Yet I suggest-and is this not the point -that it would be a very grave mistake indeed to suppose, because a Conservative government tends to appoint Conservative lawyers and a Liberal government Liberal lawyers to the bench, that such appointments are made in disregard of merit. To hear some professing democrats talk one would think that it was a great disgrace to be a member of parliament, a defeated candidate, or to be affiliated with any political party, or to take any part whatever in democratic government; and that he who did any of these things had to abandon all claim to integrity, to ability or to character. Everyone knows that that is not true. Yet from surprising sources we hear arguments which seem to be based mainly upon this premise-we heard one this afternoon.
So far as race, religion and geographical location are concerned, it is only too clear that we in Canada have always had to face, and we have to continue to face, the fact of race and the fact of religion and the fact of geographical location of at least five separate and distinct economic areas in this country with several mutually conflicting interests. Now, facing these facts, what are we going to do? Are we going to plunge

our heads in the sand, and attempt to ignore them? Of course not; we have to make our Canadian democratic system work in the face of them. And in this connection it seems to me quite idle to hold up to us the example of a more homogeneous society under totally different conditions in Great Britain. I must confess that as a Canadian I am sometimes a little impatient with these examples of the superior wisdom and capacity in Great Britain which we are urged to emulate. For, on the whole, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we Canadians have done not too badly at all, even when as in many cases we did not emulate these examples. Upon the whole the facts of race, religion and geographical location have been, under all governments in Canada, wisely and efficiently faced. This matter of judicial appointments is only one field in which they have been faced. They have been faced in many others. I would like to know in what countries in the world

 no country excluded-problems of race and language and conflicting economic interests have been more efficiently and wisely faced, with less violence and bad feeling, and with more harmony and unity than right here in Canada. I am not drawing any invidious comparisons. I am rejecting invidious comparisons; and saying simply that, under all the circumstances, quite a good job has been done in Canada by all governments facing these facts.
But I think, if I might say so, that it is an error to mix up this quotation which has been used by General Clark, and again by the hon. member for Kamloops, concerning these racial, religious and economic facts of life in Canada, with the political appointment of judges.
Let us examine the appointment of judges and see the extent to which political expediency and party loyalty are, not just factors, but determining factors in making them.
I suggest that what has happened in Canada through the years is that the party in power in Canada has appointed to the bench men who, for the most part, were men of high character and ability, most, but not all, of whom were not active in public life.
The result has been, with few exceptions, the excellent bench to which the hon. member for Kamloops has referred this afternoon. Judges sometimes, of course-individual cases -have proved unsuitable. But I suggest that where this is found to be the case, in the great majority of instances it is not because they, before appointment, belonged to this political party or that political party, but because they developed after appointment characteristics which no one, except those
Supply-Justice
who are habitually wise after the event, could have claimed they had before the appointment was made.
It is true, unfortunately, that in the appointment and conduct of human beings, whether as judges or as other office holders, there is always the unavoidable element of human fallibility and perversity; and there is in a small minority of cases a tendency of human beings when appointed to any position in which there is great security of tenure to act in a different manner from that in which they acted when they did not enjoy that security.
But I think in the interests of adding a little proportion to this picture which has been drawn by General Clark and by the hon. member for Kamloops, and in the interests of truth, I should point out that our party when in power is not in the position of having appointed to the bench no one but Liberals. Federal Liberal governments of this country have appointed men of such outstanding ability as Mr. Justice Locke, Mr. Justice Cartwright, and the late Mr. Justice Newcombe, all of the Supreme Court of Canada, who consider these constitutional questions which the hon. member for Kamloops says-and says correctly-are of such importance. Then, there is Chief Justice Williams of the court of queen's bench, Manitoba; associate chief Justice Tyndale of the superior court of Quebec; Judge Lord of the county court of Vancouver; and we have promoted outstanding judges such as Mr. Justice Montague of the court of appeals of Manitoba, Mr. Justice Keiller Mackay of the court of appeal of the province of Ontario. All these fine jurists, at that time in their lives when they were able to have political affiliations, so far as I know were not members of the Liberal party.


Jean Lesage: And Mr. Justice Gagne?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes; and Mr. Justice Gagne of Quebec. I wish to assure my hon. friend, the hon. member for Kamloops, as well as General Clark himself who, I understand, is a Conservative in politics, that I am not mentioning these appointments by way of an invidious comparison, nor am I inviting a comparison; but simply in order to present a balanced picture to hon. members and to those to whose attention these remarks may come.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the minister before him at the moment the figure showing the total number of judges appointed by this government during its tenure of office?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I have not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It would be interesting to have that figure.

Supply-Justice


Jean Lesage: It is not a question of mathematics.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should like to deal with certain of the specific points General Clark makes. He says:
Men in public life, on the other hand, are subject to pressure from party organizers on this and other subjects.
Well, I am sure all of us are aware that men in public life are subject to pressure from a great many sources. If they have not the capacity for resisting pressure, then they should not assume positions of responsibility in public life. But I should like to put on record this assertion, that to imply, as General Clark has done, that pressure of party organizers has any important or even significant influence in the appointment of judges, is quite contrary to the facts, in my experience.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has referred to "party organizers". Would he amplify the statement for our understanding. Does he include all party forces?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I was coming to that point. The term "party organizers" was the one General Clark used. As a matter of fact, when I first read that article I stopped to think about his statement, and 1 could not recall a single occasion upon which a party organizer had ever spoken to me on this subject.
The hon. member for Eglinton has asked me to develop that point. It is true that I have been approached on a number of occasions by members of the House of Commons-and, on occasion, by members of more than one party-concerning appointments; and very properly so. There is no reason why I should not be approached concerning the appointment of judges. It is equally true that I have taken the initiative to consult members of the house on a number of occasions concerning the capabilities of men being considered for such appointments. In these cases in which I spoke to members, I did so because I thought they would be able to speak authoritatively concerning the qualifications of a candidate. But it will leave the wrong impression upon hon. members in the committee if I do not hasten to emphasize the fact that the great majority of those conversations were concerned primarily with the ability of the candidate in question to serve as a judge.
General Clark quotes for a Vancouver newspaper a report from Ottawa, as follows:
Members of the House of Commons were astonished that a stranger was in line for a possible vacancy on the bench. They were also represented to have been dissatisfied with the appointment of a certain lawyer who had never been active in politics . . .
tMr. Fulton.1
Presumably this concerns my actions as Minister of Justice-and that-
. . . fears were increased because of recent nonpolitical appointments in Ontario, where it was getting around that judicial appointments were being made in a strange way. A special caucus of members was called in consequence and the Minister of Justice was approached to find out what was going on.
The first point I make in that connection is that in a matter of this importance a newspaper article of the type referred to is not a very satisfactory source of information upon which to base a definitive article or speech. I have not seen the newspaper article in question, but in relation to General Clark's statement I think I should say that no special or other caucus of members has ever made any representations to me upon the subject of judicial appointments. There may have been such a caucus, but if so its existence has never come to my attention. Any conclusions of that caucus that may have come to me certainly never came from any member or group of members representing a caucus.
The fact is that the reference in General Clark's speech to this special caucus of members was the first and only time I knew that any person was alleging that such a caucus existed. I think, however, I can identify correctly the reference to my recommendation for appointment as a judge of a certain lawyer who had never been active in politics, and to whom General Clark, quoting this Vancouver newspaper report, apparently has referred in his speech. If I do identify this case correctly it is a very fair sample of the method of appointment of the Department of Justice.
In that case what happened was that I had recommendations from lawyers, judges, members of parliament and other citizens concerning three lawyers. I gathered that two of these lawyers had been active in politics and that the third man was not in a position to be active, and had not been.
I considered all these representations and recommended the appointment of the third man, the non-active man, not because he had not taken any part in politics or because the other men had taken part but because of the three under consideration I thought the man who had not taken part was by long odds the best qualified for the appointment. In fact I was told quite pointedly that the members who had recommended the other two were quite displeased with this appointment, but so far as I know no one has ever suggested before or since that the man who was appointed was not eminently well qualified for the job or that he is not discharging his duties properly.

General Clark makes another point which concerns members of the house. He says:
Is it not unthinkable then that members of parliament who are not lawyers should consider it their perquisite to select and recommend men who are to occupy these highest of high offices?
1 must say from my experience that the implications of this question are exceedingly unfair and incorrect with regard to any members of parliament with whom I have had any contact. I have yet to meet a member of parliament who considered that it was his perquisite to select and recommend men who were to occupy judicial positions.
This is often the position in which a member is placed. Lawyers as a group are more than usually influential men in their community. Sometimes when they or their friends have rendered political favours to members of parliament they ask the members of parliament in turn to recommend them for judicial appointment. I would say it is very difficult in a case of that sort for the member to turn down the request. But my experience has been that where such a recommendation is made and I suspect the background of the recommendation, look the member in the eye and ask him point blank as to his opinion of the lawyer's competence and standing in the community, so far as I know I always get-I may be naive and have been led astray-within the limits of the member's knowledge in the matter, accurate and candid answers.
Moreover, on a number of occasions members of parliament, animated so far as I can see by no other interest than to get the best possible judge to fill a judicial post which has opened up in their community, have come to me with recommendations made on the basis of merit only. How do I know they were on the basis of merit only? Because I checked them with members of the bench and with colleagues at the bar of the candidate and confirmed that what the member had told me was true. I would not suggest for a minute that political considerations are not sometimes a factor, but they are not, in any case which has come to my attention, a determining factor.
There have been-and I think this point was raised one time by the hon. member for Macleod, who is not here today-a number of men appointed to the bench who have had experience in public life. The number is not large but there are some. I want to say that I make no apologies for these appointments. I think the men who were so appointed were men of ability, integrity and character notwithstanding that they had taken part in public life, and I entirely agree with General Clark's contention, with which I am sure the hon. member for Kamloops i55704-171
Supply-Justice
would also agree, that public service can be and is an important qualification for appointment to the bench.
In support of this contention I should like to quote an opinion expressed in his autobiography by a highly qualified expert. This man was one-indeed I do not know offhand of any other-who achieved his pre-eminence not only as an advocate, and as a member of the British House of Commons, and as one of the greatest ministers of the crown who ever held office in the United Kingdom, but also as a great law lord. Lord Haldane says in his autobiography at page 69:
I wish to record my strong conviction that, at all events, for a judge who is to sit in the supreme tribunals of the empire, and particularly in the privy council, a House of Commons training is a real advantage. One learns there the nuances of the constitution, and phases of individual and social political life which are invaluable in checking the danger of abstractness in mental outlook. I myself was peculiarly in need of such training, and I am thankful to have had twenty-five years of the great university of public life.
The bar has its uses as a training for the House of Commons, but it is not really a good school. The outlook in the house is very different from the outlook in the courts. If less scientific about details, the House of Commons' mind is wider.
This will give some comfort to the laity here.
I am not sure that a first-rate minister, although untrained as a lawyer, does not bring in a great legal bill better and more effectively than the best trained legal mind, unless that mind has, what is rare, the political gift by nature in a high degree.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why is the minister going to England for his precedent this time?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He goes on to say:
The atmosphere is quite different. I remember once arguing a case in the court of appeal before Lord Esher and Lord Justice Rigby.
Lord Justice Rigby, an old and valued friend of mine, had entered the House of Commons late in life. He never quite understood its ways, and was not appreciated to the extent which his sterling qualities of a non-political kind warranted. I was opening an appeal on the construction of an act of parliament, and I was arguing that the statute must be read as a whole in order to collect from within its four corners what I called the "mind" of the legislature in the controlling purpose which the sections indicated. "Mind of the legislature", cried out Lord Esher to me from the bench, "and you, Mr. Haldane, have been twenty years in the House of Commons and yet speak of it." "Yes," thundered out Lord Justice Rigby, "and the House of Commons is a place where if a man talks sense they call him a lawyer". Notwithstanding this, law and politics may go better together than some people think . . .
I should like to deal now with an important matter which has been touched upon by two preceding speakers and by General Clark. General Clark refers to the merits of the British system of judicial appointments when he says that it is a tradition at the bar of England that if a man

Supply-Justice
is offered an appointment to the bench he accepts it and sacrifices the emoluments of practice.
I admit that the hon. member for Kamloops was right in his statement this afternoon that sometimes when we ask lawyers in Canada to go on the bench we are told they cannot consider the acceptance of such an appointment. For example, in the case of a vacancy not so long ago we approached four lawyers who refused the judicial appointment before the one who accepted it.
Before we make any comparisons between the English and Canadian barristers in this regard however I think we should look a little beneath the surface at some of the relevant facts. For instance, when General Clark refers to cases where English barristers have thrown away incomes of $200,000 a year to accept a judicial appointment paying I believe $20,000, it sounds quite impressive until we recollect the difference of the net amount of income after income tax between $200,000 received at the bar and $20,000 received on the bench. On a mathematical basis, that difference is $180,000 a year, but after tax it amounts to only $7,500 per year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister will admit that that is a fairly recent development in England and General Clark's statement was not confined to recent years.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is quite right, but I am speaking about the present situation, about the period in my own knowledge. In Canada the difference is not $7,500, it is $43,000. In both cases the example is that of a married man without dependents.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Who is this mythical creature who earns $200,000 a year.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There are some barristers in England earning that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But not in Canada.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There may not be plenty in Canada, but there perhaps are a few. Having dealt with them in respect to this very matter I can say from direct knowledge that Canadian barristers are not any more mercenary in their attitude toward these appointments than are the English barristers. I would say that two-thirds of the appointments made to the high courts during my time have involved the lawyers accepting them in diminution in income.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: However
true that may be, and I am glad to hear that it is true, would the minister not agree that we have not reached the stage which apparently they have reached in England, where it is regarded to be a matter of duty

which is accepted by the best lawyers and where the minister would not run into such a case as he mentioned a moment ago where it was only the fifth man who took the appointment.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend by his question has very astutely anticipated the point I was going to make. Take the typical case of a man-I have had this experience- who is quite philosophical about accepting a diminution in income. The hon. member for Greenwood will remember that I developed this point when I was urging an increase in the salaries of judges. Like Mr. Micawber, except it is not a penny in this case, if a man's irreducible obligations are of the order of $30,000 a year and he has an income at the bar of $32,000 a year, the price of his accepting an appointment to the bench would be bankruptcy. As a matter of arithmetic it would be bankruptcy. Notwithstanding what we are told about the British bar, I cannot believe that members of the British bar who might be in that position would take on bankruptcy any more readily than would members of the Canadian bar.	.
I have had cases where highly qualified counsel have said, "I am sorry I cannot bridge this gap now; I have obligations to meet. I think in the course of a few years I will be free of my present obligations and the minute I am free I shall be delighted to go on the bench if the government is prepared to consider my appointment at that time." In such cases I. do not think the Canadian barristers need to take second place to the British barristers. We do not hear about cases in England where that happens.
A good deal of the criticism of Canadian judicial appointments seems to assume that the only reason why a number of eminent lawyers are still at the bar and not on the bench is that they have been passed over in favour of those with greater political influence. Whereas, for the reasons I have stated-this is particularly so in the larger cities-the fact is that there are quite a number of highly placed members of the bar who have been forced to refuse judicial appointments.
The tenor of my remarks is not that political influences are entirely absent but that they are definitely not of a dominating character and are brought to bear much less frequently and are of less potency than General Clark seems to think. Certainly we would welcome greater interest in this matter by the Canadian Bar Association or the bench or the bar of Canada, but that does not mean that we can abdicate in favour of any such

body our constitutional responsibility to appoint judges. Indeed I feel pretty certain that the great body of Canadian citizens would not want us to indulge in any such abdication.
That we must answer the criticism of professional opinion goes without saying, but the question in all these cases is whether the appointment of a lawyer whom we select is a better appointment than the appointment of other then available and willing members of the bar. On that basis I am prepared to defend any appointments I have recommended.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think a service has been done this afternoon by the hon. member for Kamloops in raising this question which has had extended discussion. I do not propose to labour the subject at any length, but I would not wish the impression created by the remarks of the Minister of Justice to pass without some observations of a corrective nature.
In the first place, if we heard only the remarks of the Minister of Justice this afternoon, it might be thought that the present system is completely satisfactory; not only that the system is satisfactory but that in all cases the appointments made to the bench by the government have been entirely satisfactory. If the Minister of Justice would not pitch his case quite so high, it might not be necessary for the members of the house to take issue with him.
In all fairness, the present system is not entirely without merit. On the other hand the present system, and the appointments that have been made, in many cases have had obvious weaknesses. On the whole, we in Canada have a good bench. On the whole, it is the kind of bench of which this country can be proud. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, surely our aim in all these cases must be towards improvement and betterment at all times. I hope we are not going simply to be satisfied with the system that has been in vogue hitherto or the considerations that have determined judicial appointments hitherto. I think we should aim at a higher type of system, at a higher type of governing consideration, than has obtained in some of the appointments that have been made.
I wish to avoid generalizations in my remarks this afternoon, because the Minister of Justice has erred in indulging in too many generalizations.
The importance of a good bench, the importance of a bench that will command public respect, needs no comment. I should like to ask the minister, however, in the face of his admissions this afternoon that political 55704-1711
Supply-Justice
considerations are a factor in appointments that are made to the bench, if he can defend the system that is in vogue now as being a perfect system or a system that is better than any that could be devised. If he pays tribute to the intelligence of Canadians or to the intelligence of those who sit in the House of Commons, then I am going to challenge us all to apply that intelligence towards devising a better system and towards improving the whole judicial system.
The minister has rejected the reference to the English practice. I wish to make this observation about it, and I do not say it inany sententious mood. The minister was not slow to tell us in the house a week ago, with some degree of gratification, of the allowance by the judicial committee of the privy council of an appeal which was taken on his instructions from the Supreme Court of Canada to judges who were appointed under the English judicial system. Let us not be carried away by these appeals to local sentiment or when the minister talks in the way he has this afternoon, as though this were an issue of patriotism. I think, Mr. Chairman, that every man who cherishes an institution in this country as important to the whole fabric of our life as is our judiciary, should be satisfied with nothing less than the highest system of judicial appointments.
There are difficulties about comparing the English system of judicial appointments with the system in Canada. In this country we do not have an official who corresponds precisely to the Lord Chancellor, in whose hands the judicial appointments largely lie. Under our system the Minister of Justice exercises some of the functions of the Lord Chancellor as well as some of the functions of the Attorney General. He is a blend of the two functions, and so far as one can observe in this case, no matter how earnestly the minister exercises some of the functions that are exercised in Great Britain by the Lord Chancellor, nevertheless the functions that devolve upon him on the political side seem to many people to weigh unduly in the decisions that are made. I am not selecting the present Minister of Justice as a conspicuous example in that respect. I believe this debate has been on a very high plane. We are talking about a system under which the political functions discharged by the Minister of Justice, whoever he may be, in past administrations, the present administration or succeeding administrations, are very difficult to divorce from those other functions which are discharged under the British system by the Lord Chancellor.
Much of the criticism that exists today- and I hope the Minister of Justice is aware that there is a good deal of criticism of the

Supply-Justice
system-unquestionably arises out of the fact that we have had a long period of government under one particular party. It has gone on now for something like seventeen years. When you see appointments being made, with a few conspicuous exceptions, drawn from the one political party that is represented in the government for seventeen years, then you can see the accumulated errors of the present system. When governments change every six or eight years you do not find the accumulated effect of all the errors of the present system so evident as you do in a case where the government holds office for a longer period of years. If the political appointments, as under the present administration, are predominantly of the political stripe represented by the government, then you have exposed to public view and criticism the inherent errors and shortcomings of the present system.
I wish to say this in all fairness, because it seems to me that the Minister of Justice did not fully apprehend or fairly state the position taken by my colleague the hon. member for Kamloops. So far as I am concerned personally, I wish to make it quite clear that I do not consider an individual who has been in the service of the people of Canada in the House of Commons, or in any other elective office, is thereby disqualified for appointment to the bench. I cannot make my view too plain in that respect. That is one side of the position. On the other hand I think we wish to see, in the case of appointments that are made, much more taken into account than simply the fact that an individual has served, even capably, as an elected representative of the people either in parliament or in some other elective office. It is a question in every case of the merit and quality of the individual. Mr. Chairman, service in the House of Commons or any of the legislatures or in some other public office is no substitute for merit for appointment to the bench.
I should like now to say a word about defeated candidates. This matter was touched on last year, and the minister referred to the remarks that were made on that occasion by the hon. member for Macleod. The fact that a man has stood for public office should certainly be no disqualification when the government considers his merit for appointment to the bench. But the impression has gone abroad that, in many appointments made by the present administration, the fact a particular individual was a defeated candidate for public office or had stood for public office under the political banner of the Liberal party has been a dominant factor in the decision made by the government. These are subjects that have to be weighed with a

great deal of care. It seems to me that such a consideration as having supported the government of the day either in the House of Commons or in some other elected body, or having been a candidate for them at the polls, should not become the dominating consideration in making appointments. I suggest further that great care should be taken that there will be no suspicion or widespread feeling on the part of the public that these considerations have been predominant in the selection of men for appointment to the bench.
The Minister of Justice may defend what he has done, but he will not disabuse the minds of many of us in this committee or the minds of many people outside the chamber of the clear impression that these political considerations have, in many cases, largely decided appointments. The worst type of yielding to political consideration, it seems to me, is to be found in a situation which I think is fresh in the minds of many hon. members. There may be much to be said for the appointment of members of the house to the bench, if they are properly qualified; but it should not be made an occasion to put pressure on members of the house to yield anything of the independence that they ought to assert in the house. But what of a case where a member of the house resigns; where he is not appointed directly to the bench but, presumably knowing that he is going to be appointed, makes himself the campaign manager for the nominee of his party to succeed him at the by-election arising out of the vacancy created by his resignation? That is a situation which has arisen, Mr. Chairman; and I say that is the worst type of yielding to political considerations of which any government could be capable. Regardless of how popular or how well qualified the individual may have been, I say that the method followed in that case was inherently wrong; it cannot fail to bring the bench into that measure of disrespect and disrepute which is unthinkable in the minds of those who love and value democracy. Hon. members of the committee know quite well the case to which I refer. Such a thing should never be permitted to happen again.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was in the minister's own province.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. I wish to say one other thing, and I do this in the spirit of fairness. The minister has indicated that he has felt free, in times past, to consult the opinion of members of the house as to the fitness of those who were under consideration for appointment to the bench. I do not quarrel at all with that practice. I think there are many members of the house, particularly

those who are practising before the courts of their province, who are well qualified to advise the minister with respect to suggestions for appointment to the bench. However, in the minds of many in this committee and outside of it, I think there is more than a suspicion that the minister is either extremely selective in his choice of those whom he consults or that the area over which advice is sought is extremely narrow indeed. I say this in fairness to the minister: there is no reason that the minister should consult me. I am certainly not one of those who have ever been consulted. I do not know any member on this side of the chamber in the opposition who has ever been consulted. It would be interesting to know who they are, on what occasion, and the extent of the consultation of the Minister of Justice with them with regard to any appointment.
I said I did not intend to prolong this discussion. I think the discussion today has been on a high plane, and I hope it will have a useful effect. All I have said this afternoon has been said in the hope that it will contribute to correcting some of the impressions that might have been drawn from the minister's remarks this afternoon, where those remarks have erred seriously on the side of generalization and on the side of putting altogether too rosy a complexion on the considerations that enter into the selection made by the government of nominees to the bench.
The minister has ignored the fact that widespread criticism exists, and that the criticism is based upon more than suspicion. In view of the extent to which people who have been closely identified with the political life of his party have received judicial appointments, it is going to take more than the kind of statement the minister made this afternoon to answer the criticism that is being levelled from many sides today.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I do not see why this discussion should be all left to the lawyers. I therefore should like to add just a word or two. I have long believed that in a democracy there is nothing in the world more important than to have the judiciary on the highest possible level. In these days when human relations have become so infinitely more complicated and when strange philosophies that we never even dreamed of now turn up even among those whom we thought were normal human beings like ourselves, I feel that the position of the judges is more than ever important. I therefore associate myself with all that has been said as to the importance not merely of appointing good men but, if possible, of doing it on a basis for which there shall be no means of criticism.
Supply-Justice
It is perfectly obvious that one of the things which will attract good men to the bench is the fact that the bench is on a high level. That is one of the reasons they get the best men in England; there the bench has a status, a dignity and a prestige which attracts men. The thing works both ways. It has that status, dignity and prestige because the best men come; and the best men come because it has that status, dignity and prestige. It seems to me that we should work to that end here.
In fairness I want to say that I think we have a great many good men on the bench. Like the hon. member for Eglinton, I believe the minister became a little bit enthusiastic this afternoon in some of the things he said. Nevertheless, the administration of the law would not stand where it does unless we had a lot of good men.
There is just one other thing I want to say. It is a kind of legacy from a member who sat in the last parliament and whom we all liked and respected. I refer to Mr. John Hackett. He made a point that I want to repeat, because one so often hears the opposite view taken. I repeat it because I think he was right. He protested again and again against the practice of detailing judges for all kinds of non-judicial functions. He pointed out that when judges get into things where human passions are involved, where there are strong economic differences among men, and into matters which are not primarily legal, inevitably they incur criticism in the minds of certain sections of the community, and that this criticism tends to drag them down from that position of impartiality and detached consideration of matters that come before them which I think is of great importance. Therefore, as a kind of proxy for Mr. Hackett, I raise that point again, as I consider it to be one of great importance.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Mr. Chairman, speaking in the interests of the layman, may I say there are one or two things that I think the minister should clear up. He has tried to assure us this afternoon that appointments to the bench are made on the basis of the individual's qualifications and ability, and that the appointee's political affiliation has not been a factor in the making of an appointment. It has been charged in the committee that during the sixteen or seventeen years the Liberal party has been in power, the appointments to the bench have been predominantly from Liberal supporters. Surely the minister can tell us just how many lawyers who were known supporters of other political parties have been appointed during those sixteen or seventeen years.

Supply-Justice
Surely there must be some good lawyers supporting other political parties, lawyers who have good qualifications for the bench. Inasmuch as in the last election fewer than 50 per cent of the voters in Canada were Liberals, I think we can assume that fewer than 50 per cent of the lawyers in Canada are Liberal. If that is a fair assumption, then one wonders how it is that there are not those in these other political parties who are qualified to fill these positions. That is the point I should like the minister to clear up for us. Name them.


Mr.   Coie@Verdun-La Salle: He has not
given any names this afternoon.


Mr. Brooks:: Not very many.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No Conservative government could give you any names.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Before the item is carried I wish to refer to another matter, if the discussion on the subject of judicial appointments is concluded.
There is no provision in the Department of Justice Act at the present time requiring the department to make an annual report to the house. There are two annual reports which come to the house from the department. There is the one on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and there is the one that comes to us from the commissioner of penitentiaries; but unlike the statutory provision with respect to I think almost all the government departments, the Department of Justice Act, chapter 106 of the revised statutes of 1927, makes no provision whatever for an annual report to the house by the department. I think it would be helpful to the house, it would increase the knowledge of hon. members and would save the time of the house when we study the estimates of the department, if an annual report were rendered to the house by the department.
The department has today considerable areas of responsibility, governmental and legislative, which are not embraced within the scope of the two reports to which I have referred. They cover two important segments, it is true, but only two segments of the responsibilities of the department. I would urge that the Department of Justice Act be so amended as to require the rendering of an annual report by the department to the house. There are many good reasons for having such a report, and I can see no reason why there should not be one.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We would be glad to take my hon. friend's suggestion under consideration. In addition to the reports he named, there are other branches of the Department of Justice which make reports. Combines make a

report, and the bankruptcy division makes a report. Did my hon. friend mention the mounted police?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There are four reports instead of the two he has mentioned, and they cover a very large area of the department. But we can take under consideration the advisability of having a report concerning the residue of the department, which will be smaller than the area which is covered by these reports which I have named.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rise to make no further reference or reply to the minister on the subject of judicial appointments, because I think a very useful and quite full debate has already taken place. I might just make this comment in passing. I was impressed by the readiness with which the minister, having dismissed for one purpose the tendency to look for examples of what goes on in England, refers to it gladly for another purpose when the example he quotes happens to conform to the argument he is at that moment advancing.
What I was going to ask the minister is with respect to the item, which I realize is small but nevertheless appears under this heading, of $3,000 for attendance at the judicial committee of the privy council. I observe it was not included last year, and I checked on last year's estimates and found that to be so, but it is included this year. I was not aware that there were any cases to be tried in the fiscal year now under review in which the government of Canada would have an interest. In any event it seems to me that, since the right of appeal to the privy council has been abolished, consideration should be given to amending or repealing that statute and taking that item from the estimates. Can the minister give us the position at the moment?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The position is that last year, notwithstanding the fact that the item was not included in the estimates, the chief justice did attend and did serve his time on the privy council. He went over this year, and the intention is that he should continue to go as long as there are appeals going from Canada to the privy council, but not after that.
The appeals will continue from Canada as long as there are cases which were current in some courts at the time the act abolishing the appeals was assented to in December, 1949. It is very difficult to forecast exactly when that will be, because it depends upon the rate of progress of the current cases through the courts. It may be some time before these current cases get to trial; and

alter the judgment is given, if there is any delay in the appeal to the first trial court and then to the supreme court, and so on, these delays may extend the time when such current cases reach the privy council, but when the last of them shall have been considered by the privy council, this item will disappear.


Mr. Gillis:: I should like to ask the minister a question. I do it now because there is no other place in the estimates I can do it. On many occasions the question was raised in the house of the minister taking under consideration the matter of enacting some legislation that would provide assistance for the lower income groups in the country who may become involved in lawsuits, to help them in carrying their cases to court. There has been a lot of discussion in the house. The minister remembers the discussions very well. That legislation exists in other countries. Because a large percentage of our people in the lower income groups cannot afford to go to the courts to get justice, some help should be given them. I thought we were making some progress there, because after a couple of discussions in the house I noticed that the bar association of Montreal had met and discussed the matter among themselves. They were going to set up some quasi-charitable institution among themselves to provide legal advice for those who were not in the position to pay for it. I notice that the bar associations of New Brunswick and Ontario have done the same thing. It looked to me then as if the legal profession were becoming alive to the necessity of this kind of thing. Perhaps they are a little bit afraid of legislation that would provide it by law.
I should like to know whether the department has been considering that matter and how far they have progressed towards some legislation.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Under the Canadian constitution the exclusive authority over the administration of justice is vested with the provinces. I believe that in many of the provinces, as my hon. friend has rightly indicated, consideration has been given to this problem, which I think I am right in saying in most of them has taken the form of an offer made by the bar association or the law society to make available a list of volunteers including many of their best counsel to act for people who otherwise would not be able to afford legal help. That is true in my own province, and I think it is true in many of the others. They have done that in much the same way surgeons do in the hospitals. Oftentimes the man who has no money can get a much better surgeon than if he had just a moderate amount of money.
Supply-Justice
As a lawyer myself, perhaps I am a little prejudiced. I would think that sort of assistance would probably be more satisfactory and more effective than if it were provided by the provincial governments. But if it proved not to be so, then there would be nothing to prevent the provincial governments making assistance of that kind available if they wished to do so. Of course in certain cases for many years they have made it available. For example, if a man is charged with murder in the criminal courts the provincial government always sees to it that a counsel is appointed to defend him if he has not been able to instruct one himself.


Clarence Gillis: I am not entirely satisfied with the minister's explanation. To begin with, this is not only a matter of administering the law. This is a matter of enabling a citizen who is not in a position to pay for legal services to obtain some assistance in the redress of a wrong. I know there are many warmhearted lawyers who will take such a case, provided it does not entail too much expense.
I am always suspicious of these voluntary organizations which spring up when some service of this kind is asked for. I think one of the main reasons we do not have a health program in this country is that every time we talk about it some new hospital scheme springs up to confuse us. I may be suspicious but I have noted that in two or three provinces some action was taken by lawyers when it was pointed out pretty strongly in the House of Commons that some assistance should be given.
I do not agree with the minister when he says it is the duty of the province only to administer the law. It is not a matter of administering the law, but rather one of enabling many citizens to take advantage of the law which exists. I do not ever expect that we will have this service on a provincial basis. I believe some serious study must be given to the matter by the federal Department of Justice so the provinces may have the benefit of guidance.
About a year ago I came in contact with a case in connection with which, I am sure, I had the same experience other hon. members have had. This was the case of a woman who had been struck by a motorcar and as a result spent nine months in hospital. She had a good case against an insurance company. For some time a lawyer was acting for her, but he did not make any progress. The only advice he gave her was to accept what the insurance company had offered-and that amounted to almost nothing. They said that they would pay the hospital bill and the nurses, but this woman had been crippled.

Supply-Justice
I talked to a lawyer who is a good friend of mine, and he pointed out that the woman had no money, and that if she wished to obtain any redress the case would have to be taken to court. The lawyer was not in a position to do that without having some money. I took hold of the case and succeeded in having it straightened out and obtaining what I considered was a reasonable settlement for the woman. But this was done through the threat of taking the matter to court. So far as I was concerned, it would have to go to court.
That is only one case. All of us come in contact with cases of that kind from time to time. I believe there should be a national law under which when a person is aggrieved and there is no doubt as to how the law would operate if the case could be taken to court, his interests would be looked after. I believe cases of that kind should be covered by a federal statute so that people on low incomes-even below the tax exemption- would have some assistance through a fund. I do not believe lawyers should have to work for nothing. They have their living expenses, and they have offices to maintain. My point is that some fund should be available out of which reasonable expenses could be paid to a lawyer when he has a case placed before him which, in his opinion, requires redress in a court of law, but where the aggrieved person does not have the money to go to court.
I would ask the minister to study the matter and at some time make a statement to the house as to what the cost might be and how it might be worked out. We are not infringing upon provincial rights or upon any laws now existing. It is the sort of matter that could be determined by the Department of Justice so that justice would be available to every citizen in Canada, regardless of financial status.


Mr. Blackmore:: I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I believe that through co-operation between federal and provincial authorities there could be at suitable centres men appointed who would act in a manner somewhat similar to pensions advocates. It would be the duty of such persons to see to it that people with cases to place before the courts might be able to do so, without being confronted with heavy expenses.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
180. Combines investigation branch, $261,055.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I presume there will be some discussion on this item. As we are now expecting royal assent, and as our time is
[Mr. Gillis.l
somewhat limited, I suggest the committee might rise and report progress.


The Chairman:: We are expecting a message from the Senate. Perhaps this item could stand, and we might proceed to the next one. We are expecting the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod momentarily.
Item stands.
181. Bankruptcy Act administration, $42,219.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister make a statement as to the revision of the statutes, and when it is expected that copies of the new revised statutes will be available.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have here a letter from
Chief Justice Rinfret, chairman of the statute revision commission, under date of May 23, 1952, only a few days ago. It is addressed to the Prime Minister, and reads as follows:
As chairman of the statute revision commission I feel that I should at this stage submit to you a report on the progress of the work.
We have reached a point now where all the material in both English and French versions has been consolidated, and, for the most part, set in type.
All the English material is set in type and has been revised by the commission in accordance with the authority conferred by the statute revision act. Final check proofs of the statutes in English are now being drawn and it is hoped that within a month or so all final copy for the English version will be in the hands of the printer.
The French version has also been completely consolidated and almost the entire French version is now set in type. The commission has engaged the translation bureau to revise the French version, and the bureau has now completed a little more than half the revision.
The statutes enacted at the current session of parliament cannot be included in the revision because we must now submit final copy to the printer. However, last year authority was obtained from parliament to issue a supplementary volume-
Members will recall that.
-and it is proposed to prepare, after the conclusion of the current session, a supplementary volume which will reflect the statutes passed at this session of parliament in terms of the new revised statutes so that when the new revised statutes are issued they will contain the complete and correct statute law as of that moment.
Early this year plans were made to have the revised statutes appear on the 1st January, 1953. We are, however, informed by the printer that at the current rate of progress, and having regard to the amount of other printing required, it will not be possible to bring the statutes out on that date and we should therefore contemplate the possibility that it may be some months after the 1st January, 1953, before the new statutes can appear. The printing task is, of course, an enormous one. Each version will run to nearly six thousand pages and in addition there will be tables, indexes and the proposed supplementary volume.
In addition, there will be tables, indexes and a proposed supplementary volume.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the date of that report?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May 23, 1952; just a few days ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think any of us is likely to underestimate the immensity of the task, even from this point forward. One can only express the hope that if anything can possibly be done to bring the statutes into effect as of a convenient date such as the first day of a new year, it will be done.
My other question has reference to the honoraria paid to members of the Criminal Code revision commission. There is an item of $25,000 for this purpose. Will the minister indicate how that is to be distributed and what have been the honoraria paid to date? What will the total amount to by the time the task is completed?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My information is that the amount that will be paid to those engaged will be roughly in proportion to the work they have done, with a ceiling of $7,500 to any one person for three years work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the relief of Shirley Doreen Rowe.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Minnie Hogbin Neale.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Ailsie Jean Coghlin Hands.
An act for the relief of John Hellmann.
An act for the relief of Myrtle Jesse Marie Gangin dit Gilmore Cooney.
An act for the relief of Hilda Richardson Tait.
An act for the relief of Catherine Vaughan Troy Campbell.
An act for the relief of Mary Margaret Graham.
An act for the relief of Bernice Pomp Gates, otherwise known as Bernice Frank Gates.
An act for the relief of Mary Mildred Antoinette Castonguay Smithson.
An act for the relief of Alma Dorothy Lines Robertson.
An act for the relief of Erita Ethel Elliott Morris.
An act for the relief of Phyllis Joan Cross Cohen, otherwise known as Phyllis Joan Cross Grosvenor.
An act for the relief of John Gavigan.
An act for the relief of Elsie Alexandria Thompson Parr.
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Frances Bailey Hershbain, otherwise known as Frances Bailey Berman.
An act for the relief of Cosmo Iellamo.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Joan Mary Hoerner
Rawley.
An act for the relief of Jennie Harris Klaiman.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Gertrude French Gorrell.
An act for the relief of Cecile Emilie Viger Ross.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Edna Gibson Smith
Schiller.
An act for the relief of Lillian May Holloway O'Brien.
An	act	for	the	relief	of Kathleen Marjorie
Hastings Hawkins.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Jean Marie Weeks
Opzoomer.
An act for the relief of Doris Abbott Watts.
An act for the relief of Hyman Krull.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Margaret Elizabeth
Strange Colton.
An act for the relief of Irene Britton Lynn.
An act for the relief of Grace Catherine Piche Lovegrove.
An act for the relief of Bruce Edward Steggles.
An act for the relief of Alexander Malcolm Dick.
An act for the relief of Pauline Augusta McCaskill Foulis.
An act for the relief of Hilda Avrith Grossman.
An act for the relief of Sarah Grossman Grotsky.
An act for the relief of Rose Dorothy Weatherbee Stopps.
An act for the relief of Nancy Jean Tolmie Dawson.
An act for the relief of Misha Paunovic.
An act for the relief of Eva Ena Guenard Brassard.
An act for the relief of Helen Maude Walmesley Cherry.
An act for the relief of Margaret Ann Greenaway Worrell.
An act for the relief of Isabel Welch Remillard.
An act for the relief of Eileen Shirley Guttman Fagen.
An act for the relief of Helen Myrtle Woods Poullos.
An act for the relief of Karl Gunnar Tammi.
An act for the relief of Peter Nicol Crowe.
An act for the relief of Fred Jenne Fyles.
An act for the relief of Louisa Crawford Gordon-smith.
An act for the relief of Rhoda Hayes Goulet.
An act for the relief of Malfice Ciccone Nadeau.
An act for the relief of Mary Rita Estella Brennan Henderson.
An act for the relief of Florence Edith Holland Clarke.
An act for the relief of Olga Pretula McGonnigal.
An act for the relief of Andre Roy.
An act for the relief of Libertia Vinivar McClusky Rutherford.
An act for the relief of Therese Michel Paquette.
An act for the relief of Alice Courey Salhany.
An act for the relief of Vivian Clement Mole.
An act for the relief of Olga Katchan Parisella.
An act for the relief of Frederick Ernest Marlow.
An act for the relief of Frederick James Perkins.
An act for the relief of Roger Lessard.
An act for the relief of Phyllis Muriel Skelcher MacDonald.
An act for the relief of Audrey Jessie Elizabeth Kinnear Park.
An act for the relief of Alfred Ernest Farebrother.
An act for the relief of Herve Brunelle.
An act for the relief of Jean Frew Hawkins.
An act for the relief of Lucy Elliott Dolan.
An act for the relief of Phyllis Kaplan Holloway.
An act for the relief of Marie Anna Brassard Bachand.
An act for the relief of Serna Rubin Charles.
An act for the relief of George Louis Draper.
[Stage Direction]
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of William Young.
An act for the relief of Ruth Evelyn Seivewright Day.
An act for the relief of Mollie Balacan Pantel.
An act for the relief of George Edward Gumbley.
An act for the relief of Dorothy L. Grauer Shapiro.
An act for the relief of Sylvia Grace Martin Corbett.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Sarah	Sybil Aaron
Daugaard.
An act for the relief of Kenneth Ashby Lambe.
An act for the relief of Lillian Ethlyn Crouse McManus.
An act for the relief of Marie Leopoldine Gab-rielle Asselin Adler.
An act for the relief of Joseph Jacques Ernest Demers.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Madeleine Therrien
Ferron.
An act for the relief of Catherine Victoria Howie Burnett Worthington.
An act for the relief of Hazel Rawlings Passnick.
An act for the relief of Douglas Paul Wilbur.
An act for the relief of Arnold Ernest Kirby.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Annie	Shaw Young
Goudie Corcoran.
An act for the relief of Frederick Charles Butler.
An act for the relief of Sam Feldstein.
An act for the relief of Thomas Richard Markey.
An act for the relief of Vera Jane Carroll Ross.
An act for the relief of Ruth van der Walde Crowley.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Mabel	(Karianoron)
Stacey Delorimier.
An act for the relief of Ruth Friefeld Ragoza.
An act for the relief of Mary Duncan Barlow.
An act for the relief of Cyril Frederick Hembling.
An act for the relief of Denise Gelinas Gilmour.
An act for the relief of Gordon Eugene White.
An act for the relief of Silas Maxwell Barrow.
An act for the relief of Arline Silverman Cohen.
An act for the relief of Doris Jane Aitchison Birchenough.
An act for the relief of Margaret Lois Long Fordham.
An act for the relief of Eileen Roberta Lynn Walker.
An act for the relief of Claire Greenberg Ghilcig.
An act for the relief of Rose Godfrey Slutsky.
An act for the relief of Eva Lubin Greenfield.
An act for the relief of Gladys Cecelia Fisher Waugh.
An act for the relief of Sheila Ruth Coppelman Mitmaker, otherwise known as Sheila Ruth Coppelman Mintz.
An act for the relief of Ada Vera Higgins Montgomery.
An act for the relief of Priscilla Theresa Marie Laurin Minyaska.
An act for the relief of Marie Dora Adrienne Menard Chartrand.
An act for the relief of Bridget Chiasson Musseau.
An act for the relief of Emilia Bigelis Kozakiewicz.
An act for the relief of Dora Katz Schneiderman.
An act for the relief of Joseph Lionel Bibeau.
An act for the relief of Helene Philomena Schenker Champ-Renaud.
An act for the relief of Mary Finkelstein Fogel.
An act for the relief of Gregorij Sergeij Anker-Jakerov.
An act for the relief of Florence Margaret Parsonage Velleman.
An act for the relief of Georgine Jun Ruzicka.
An act for the relief of Jean (Janek) Mazur.
An act for the relief of Giuseppa Manuri Bartucci.
An act for the relief of Joseph Edgar Eaton.

An act for the relief of Nathalie Olga Marianne Pervouchine Petrik.
An act for the relief of Lily Stall Wax.
An act for the relief of Charles William Silver.
An act for the relief of Hilda Irene Gordon Diamond.
An act for the relief of Jochwet Freiberg Rosen-stein.
An act for the relief of Mabel Elizabeth Jones McKay.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Esme Graham Snell.
An act for the relief of Olive Winifred Thistle Gour.
An act for the relief of Sergius Messier.
An act for the relief of Samuel Long Adamson.
An act for the relief of Sadie Isaac Kannon.
An act for the relief of Yvonne Yvette Lalonde Faucher.
An act for the relief of Kenneth Oliver Frawley.
An act for the relief of Carol Almina Perry Alleyn.
An act for the relief of Edna Pearl Tait Ames.
An act for the relief of William Payne.
An act for the relief of Edith Olive Catherine Cramp Midgley.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Lillian Robinson Kay.
An act for the relief of Emily Eileen Withall Rediker.
An act for the relief of Joseph Charles Gerard Jean Leduc.
An act for the relief of Hilda Miriam Magee Taylor.
An act for the relief of Laurent Langlois.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Lucille Girard Ward.
An act for the relief of Alfred Machabee.
An act for the relief of Fanny Iancovici Weissenberg.
An act for the relief of Marilyn Apple Bogoroch.
An act for the relief of Rowena Ann Christena Turner Rae.
An act for the relief of Jozefa Majcher Wozniak.
An act for the relief of Helen Semegen Boodanoff.
An act for the relief of Mary Ann Munro Kelly.
An act for the relief of Esther Maron Feldman.
An act for the relief of Joan Alexander Jacobs Epstein.
An act for the relief of Gertrude Mintz Dankoff.
An act respecting The British Northwestern Fire Insurance Company.
An act to incorporate The Perth Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
An act respecting the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts.
An act to amend the Victoria Day Act.
An act to amend The Export and Import Permits Act.
An act respecting Gulf Pulp and Paper Company.
An act respecting the Board of Elders of the Canadian District of the Moravian Church in America.
An act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
An act to amend the Supreme Court Act.
An act to amend the Interpretation Act.
An act to incorporate The Hotel Mutual Insurance Company.
An act to amend The Government Employees Compensation Act, 1947.
An act respecting The New Westminster Harbour Commissioners.
An act respecting the appointment of Auditors for National Railways.
An act respecting The Canadian Forces.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1953.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ISO. Combines investigation branch, $261,055.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, yesterday
afternoon the minister indicated, in reply to a question from my colleague the hon. member for Kamloops, that at the present session legislation will be introduced for the purpose of amending the Combines Investigation Act; and indeed notice of a resolution to that effect has already appeared in Votes and Proceedings. I do not propose at this stage-indeed, it would be improper for me to do so-to embark upon an inquiry with regard to the scope or the extent of that proposed legislation. Nevertheless, it seems to me that at this point, where we are dealing with the estimates of the Department of Justice to provide for the combines investigation branch, this committee of supply will have to know something of the relationship between the estimate and the requirements of the proposed new organization of the combines investigation branch.
I can only assume that the legislation may follow at least to some extent, if not entirely, the recommendations made to the minister by the committee which was set up to study the combines legislation; I refer to the so-called MacQuarrie committee. As hon. members well know, this committee recommended a fundamental change in the structure of the combines investigation branch, featured by a separation of functions between the investigations and research agency on the one hand, and the board on the other. As the estimate before us, which is item No. 180, must have been drafted before there was any thought of introducing these far-reaching changes in the structure of the branch, I ask just what relationship this item of $261,055 is going to bear to the required expenditure of the new branch. I am wondering whether it might not be better to let this item stand over- and it is only a suggestion-until the house has considered the new legislation, in order that we may have some appreciation of the relationship between the new structure of the branch and the sum asked for by the government to sustain it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is quite right in his surmise that the figure indicated in the estimate here is on the basis of the present set-up. Indeed, as I am sure he will appreciate, until the legislation is passed by the
Supply-Justice
house we could hardly submit an estimate based upon the new structure. However, as a result of some preliminary work of a rough kind, or a rough estimate, we feel that the new set-up which the MacQuarrie committee has recommended will involve to quite a large extent a rearrangement of the work which is already being done and the work which is anticipated by the combines commission and which would require additional personnel in any event. But we could not now give an estimate of the amount of the net increase that would be necessitated by the enactment of our new bill-indeed, I think it would be quite presumptuous on our part to attempt to do so-until we see in what form it emerges from the deliberations of parliament. We shall, however, have to bring down a supplementary estimate to cover the requirements of the new legislation, and at that time I think it would be proper to go into the question as to how the costs have been increased thereby.
My hon. friend will see that the increase indicated here is small. It is only of the order of $12,000, which is for the most part occasioned by increases in pay.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am wondering whether the committee can intelligently proceed to appraise an item of this kind, based upon the kind of detail that is to be found at page 222 of the volume of estimates, when the changes which are to be made in the structure of the branch may be quite far-reaching. Would it not be better therefore to allow the item to stand until after the legislation has been disposed of? Then we could be given revised details, as exact as it may be possible to prepare them, in the light of the proposed reorganization of the branch.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think my hon. friend will agree, if he reflects upon the matter, that until the legislation is passed by the house it is almost impossible to give an estimate for which any pretensions of accuracy can be made.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the reason I am suggesting that this item might stand.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What I would suggest is that we pass this item, and then have the additional requirement covered by a supplementary estimate. We would have to bring in a new estimate anyway in order to cover this requirement. This estimate does not purport to cover any of the changes that are contemplated by the bill. This estimate was prepared on the basis of a continuation of the present administrative set-up. I think the orderly way to proceed is for us to bring down the bill as we are now doing; then when the bill has been passed by the house

Supply-Justice
we shall know from the form in which it will have been passed what is to be done and what we will be able to put before the house as an intelligent estimate which we will have to justify in terms of the bill which the house will have previously passed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Precisely so, Mr. Chairman. That is why I am suggesting that it would be better to let this item stand until that time comes. For instance, is the minister in a position now to say, looking at the details at page 222, that after parliament has reconstructed the branch and has perhaps made extensive changes in its structure, there will be one commissioner; two deputy commissioners; two combines investigation officers, grade 4; five combines investigation officers, grade 3; six combines investigation officers, grade 2; two combines investigation officers, grade 1; and so on down the list? If we proceed with this item at the moment it means that we are being asked to provide money literally on the assumption that the present structure is going to continue. This measure is going to be dealt with at this session. In the light of the facts which the minister has stated, Mr. Chairman, I offer the suggestion that the proper procedure would be to allow this item to stand. Then it can be taken up after parliament has dealt with the bill. We can have a new item then, a substitute item, brought before the committee of supply, in the light of what are going to be the needs of the branch as reconstructed under the proposed legislation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Before the minister answers may I make one addition to what my hon. friend has said. If we go on as we are now, are we not going to do something we know is not right? There are not many instances in which the government has failed to have legislation pass which it has brought forward in this house. May I repeat, if we do this now, we are going to do something we know will have to be undone and changed. What is the objection to waiting until we can do the job right?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think both my hon. friends will agree that there is small likelihood of our requiring any less amount of money than this estimate. If the change we were contemplating might provide for either less money or more money, then I could see the point of letting the item stand. We know perfectly well that we will require at least the amount of money set out in this estimate. The only point is, we do not know how much more we will need. To provide this we can bring down a supplementary estimate, which I think can be considered quite intelligently

and fairly by the house after we have our legislation completed.
If after our legislation is passed there were any possibility of the estimate being less, why then, I would instantly agree with my hon. friends and say, "Let's not bother passing it now". But we know we shall require every penny of this amount, and then after the legislation is passed we shall have to show why we are asking the house for x thousand dollars in addition to this to pay for the costs of the new set-up. We shall do that, and my hon. friends will have a full opportunity of discussing that supplementary estimate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister in a position to indicate whether any inquiries are in process at the present time? If so, how many?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: At the end of the last fiscal year eight formal inquiries were in process.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have any of them reached the stage where a report has been prepared?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. At the present moment I have a report, the time of filing of which will expire next week, and it will have to be done by that date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will not fail to do so?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It will be filed in due course.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Within fifteen days?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right. It is some 700 pages, and I have not yet succeeded in reading the whole of it, but I hope to do it over next week end.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure the minister will appreciate the fact that we are getting this information out so he will not make a certain error as he did once before. Is it possible for the minister to tell us at this stage the subject of that inquiry?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We have always maintained complete secrecy in our proceedings up until the point that the report is tabled. I think to mention the subject of the inquiry now would set off a lot of conjectures. I think it is better to wait. What we would like to do when we table it is to have enough copies to take care of the press, and also a resume for the press so that they will be able to get it before the public in proper form. I think that purpose would be hindered if we were to give an advance indication of its identity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister told us that there were eight investigations in process as at the end of the last fiscal year. He has indicated that one of them is at the report stage. The other seven are being continued and will result in reports?

Supply-Justice


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In two other cases reports are was subsequently denied and a statement was reasonably imminent, and in two other cases made to the effect that we would assume the they are in preparation. That accounts for same attitude with regard to that amendment five. The remainder are proceeding but and its enforcement that we maintain reports are not in preparation.	in regard to the main body of the act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have any new investigations been commenced since the end of the last fiscal year?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I did not get that last question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister thus far has said there were eight investigations in process as at the end of the last fiscal year. I am asking now whether any new investigations have been commenced since the beginning of this fiscal year.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, one formal inquiry which has already been announced to the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister any report to make on the administration of the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act which were passed by the house last December? I could indicate the subject of these amendments, but I think it is pretty well known.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. The situation there is that for some time now we have had investigations made as to the operation and the effect, so far as we are able to appraise it, of the legislation that was passed last fall. I have had quite a keen personal interest in the matter, and I have had interviews with the men who are conducting this inquiry, but they have not got their work to the point where they can make any formal report on it as yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it that it is intended that a formal report will be made so we will know whether any results have come from that legislation.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The usual practice in matters of this kind is to include a report in the annual report of the department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have any prosecutions been initiated under that legislation?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, there have been no prosecutions, but there is one inquiry on foot under it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I saw a press dispatch shortly after the prorogation of the last session of the house indicating that it was the intention of the government or the combines investigation branch to leave the enforcement of the 1951 amendments largely to persons affected, normally purchasers from retailers. Just what steps is the branch itself undertaking with a view to enforcement of these amendments?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If I am thinking of the same dispatch my hon. friend is thinking of, that


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
183. To provide for the revision of the Criminal Code, including payment of $25,000 notwithstanding section 37 of the Judges Act, 1946, as amended, of honoraria for services rendered during the years 1949, 1950 and 1951, to the following commissioners of the criminal code revision commission: Chief Justice William M. Martin, Regina, Sask., Honourable Mr. Justice Fernand Choquette, Quebec city, P.Q., His Honour Judge Robert Forsyth, Toronto, Ont., H. J. Wilson, Q.C., Edmonton, Alta., Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C., Toronto, Ont., $35,500.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it that the commission that was charged with the responsibility for the revision of the Criminal Code, having tendered its report, is now functus. On that assumption I wish to ask the minister about the provision for honoraria, how the honoraria are to be distributed among the members of the commission, and the total amounts that will be paid to these gentlemen for the entire task.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have here a memorandum indicating that the $35,000 indicated in the estimates would be divided up as follows: Chief Justice William M. Martin of Saskatchewan, $7,500; Mr. Justice Fernand Choquette, who had been paid $1,000 advance prior to his appointment to the bench, $6,500; His Honour Judge Robert Forsyth, $7,500; H. J. Wilson, Q.C., deputy attorney general of Alberta, $1,500, he having received $1,000 advance and $5,000 as part-time salary; Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C. of Toronto, $1,500. This makes a total of $24,500, the balance being spent for travelling, $3,000; publication and printing, $5,000; additional temporary assistance, $2,500.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why is Mr. Sedgwick's share of the honoraria so much smaller than the others?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I indicated before the dinner recess, the remuneration paid to the commissioners would be in proportion to the amount of time they spent on the work, with a ceiling of $7,500 for any one person. These amounts are calculated, I believe, on the amount of time the respective members of the commission devoted to the work over the three years it was in course of preparation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Penitentiaries-
Office of the commissioner of penitentiaries-
184. Administration of the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries, including $35,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by the governor in council, $338,771.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Justice
Stuart Sinclair Garson: In connection with this matter I should like to make a few comments. The annual report of the commissioner of penitentiaries is a very interesting document which I strongly recommend to hon. members. However, it is a fairly thick volume, and I thought perhaps it might serve some purpose if I were to make a brief review of the more prominent highlights that might perhaps escape a perusal of the report itself, if it were of a rather hasty nature.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Has it been published?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, published and tabled. I strongly recommend that hon. members see it. It is a very interesting document indeed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is the date of this document?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1951.
In September, 1947, the penitentiaries branch was reorganized with a view to implementation of the recommendations of the royal commission to investigate the penal system of Canada, better known as the Archambault report. During the intervening years an effort has been made to find practical means to interpret the rather general recommendations of the Archambault commission, in the light of the changed circumstances since the commission made its report.
Since the annual report of the commissioner of penitentiaries has recorded these developments in detail from year to year, it is not my purpose tonight to give a complete summary of everything that has taken place in the interval. It will suffice to say that we have gradually been replacing outworn and obsolete machinery and equipment in the penitentiary shops, that we have made every reasonable effort to improve personnel employed in the penitentiaries, and that major attention has been focused on the treatment of inmates to bring our practices more into conformity with recognized modem correctional procedure.
The basic purpose of the police forces, courts of law and penal institutions remains, as always, the protection of society. A temporary protection may be afforded by the removal of the offender from society and his incarceration for a longer or shorter period of time, as may be determined by the courts. Since, however, it is estimated that 98 per cent of all persons committed to institutions, no matter how long their sentences, will ultimately be released, it is important that during the period of imprisonment every effort should be made to change the basic habit

patterns and attitudes of the inmate so that upon release he may be better prepared to live a law-abiding life and to take his place as a fully functioning citizen.
Such a policy demands that all the resources and skills which may be made available in the handling of human beings should be applied in the day to day administration of the institutions. Considering the limitations imposed by the unnatural conditions under which persons live in penal institutions and the necessary concern for safety and security, this is not the easiest possible task. I believe, however, that during the past year we have made further progress in the development in our staffs of a better appreciation of the basic philosophy behind a truly correctional program. Though we are still faced with some problems of physical limitations by reason of inadequate or obsolete equipment, these difficulties are steadily being overcome; staffs of the institutions are now thoroughly aware of the objectives of the new program and are loyally supporting the efforts of the commissioner and his associates.
In June, 1951, a conference of all our wardens was convened in Ottawa. This was the second such conference that has been held in recent years. For a period of ten days the headquarters staff and the wardens of the penitentiaries discussed in detail problems of administration, and at that time far-reaching decisions were made regarding future developments. In the development of such a program as we have in mind it is essential that there should constantly be maintained an effective liaison between the headquarters staff which is charged with the responsibility for over-all administration and the institutional staff which has the day to day responsibility of translating general policy into daily procedures.
With the concurrence of treasury board a change in the remuneration rate for prisoners became effective on October 1, 1951. The old rate was 5 cents per day given uniformly to all prisoners whose conduct and industry was satisfactory. In effect this meant that as long as a man did not commit any acts of misconduct he received the daily remuneration, but this sum was inadequate to provide even a reasonable discharge allowance and did not make any distinction between inmates who were merely doing the minimum of daily work and those who were making better efforts. The new scale of remuneration, therefore, is a graded scale of 10, 15 and 20 cents per day, inmates being graded at intervals of three months not merely on their work efficiency but on their general conduct and

attitudes. A portion of the daily remuneration must be saved against the day of release; the balance may be spent for the purchase of small amenities such as chocolate bars, chewing gum, toilet supplies, etc. It is our hope that such a scale of graded remuneration will not only provide a somewhat more adequate discharge allowance but that it will also provide an incentive for better work in the penitentiary shops.
Consequent upon the introduction of increased remuneration, small canteens were established on December 1, 1951, through which inmates could make purchases of the comforts to which I have referred. In these canteens, however, no inmate is permitted to spend personal trust funds; he is only permitted to spend money which he actually earns in the institution. It was felt that any other policy would set up discrimination between inmates who had funds available and those who had none; it is an important principle of prison administration that no such policy of discrimination should be allowed to develop.
Another extremely interesting innovation of the past year was the authorization of inmate subscription to daily newspapers, without censorship. If it is hoped that prisoners will sooner or later return to the outside world, it is obviously necessary that they should not lose complete contact with what is going on in that outside world. In any case news sooner or later penetrates prison walls, and almost invariably in a perverted form. It seems to us much wiser to permit inmates to receive the news in the same way any other citizen may, and that he should also have the benefit of other material contained in the daily newspapers which will keep him in touch with the currents of thought and activity in the world to which he will return. This privilege has been much appreciated by the inmates and so far has presented no serious problems.
At Christmas of last year inmates for the first time were permitted to receive Christmas parcels from the outside. These were standard parcels of a value from $1 to $5, and arrangements were made by the individual wardens to have such parcels prepared by outside commercial suppliers provided the inmates themselves or their relatives made necessary funds available. The Christmas season in the institutions has in times past been a period of considerable emotional tension. The granting of this privilege in keeping with the sentiments of the season seemed to be a reasonable and humane act, and it was also much appreciated by the inmates. There were of course some inmates
Supply-Justice
who did not have funds available, but various arrangements were made that assured that no inmate would suffer because of lack of personal funds. It is only fair to the inmates to state that in many cases more fortunately placed inmates generously shared the contents of their parcels with their less fortunate fellows.
Since 1948 training courses for penitentiary staffs have been conducted in Ottawa, initially with the co-operation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and in accommodations provided by the police. It became obvious, however, that if such a training program were to be carried on effectively it was essential to have a permanent training centre devoted entirely to the training of penitentiary staffs. To achieve this end a suitable property already in the possession of the government was transferred to the penitentiary branch. The fine old residence has been entirely renovated by inmate labour, was furnished almost in its entirety with the products of penitentiary workshops, and on March 1 was opened as the penitentiary staff college.
Its location at Kingston is the logical one, inasmuch as it is in close proximity to Kingston and Collin's Bay penitentiaries and the prison for women, as well as having available the facilities of Queen's university with which it is hoped there may be increasing co-operation in our training program. Since March 1 two groups of guards from all institutions have attended, and there have been two conferences of senior officers. The establishment of this institution on a permanent basis is a recognition of the vital importance of continued training of penitentiary officers for their difficult and valuable work.
I previously announced plans for the development of a new institution in the province of Quebec in order to alleviate the overcrowded conditions at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary and to make better provision for the segregation of young and reformable types of offenders. Although not yet completed this institution, known as the federal training centre, contiguous to the penitentiary but under its own separate administration, has now reached the point where it can operate with its own staff and its own program. Suitable inmates, after a screening process, are transferred from St. Vincent de Paul to the new institution, and at the present time some 200 inmates have been so transferred. In this new institution an effort has been made to incorporate the best results of penal administrators elsewhere. Inasmuch

Supply-Justice
as all our penitentiaries are in a sense maximum security institutions, this too is a walled institution.
Emphasis, however, will be placed on education and vocational training. Considerable use already is being made of inmate committees in order to develop a sense of community responsibility. There is a greater measure of freedom allowed within the walls than is customary in most of our institutions. A mess hall has been provided so that inmates in this institution will eat their meals together. Further suitable facilities, hospitals, chapels, school buildings, etc., are now in the process of construction and will be completed in the not too distant future. The ultimate capacity of this institution will be 600 inmates.
There have been continued developments during the years in the recreational program, the hobbies program, in inmate publications and the development of inmate participation and responsibility through inmate committees operating under the direction of the staffs. Many of these developments have been fully reported in the daily press. It is interesting to note that in at least two areas penitentiary teams have been included in local city softball leagues and the standard of sportsmanship displayed in these contests has been a credit to the men in our institutions. Furthermore, such visits to the institutions have provided opportunities for certain members of the outside public to see something of the inside of prisons and to become familiar with a policy of administration which is humane and dedicated to the idea of rehabilitation.
Of course it would be ridiculous if all these efforts and others which are more fully described in the annual report, which as I said before I strongly recommend to hon. members, were not supplemented by efforts to assist the ex-prisoner to adjust himself at the time of his release. There have been continuing efforts in the organization of prisoners' aid societies, and such organizations are now functioning in practically every large community across the country. The national employment service through its special placements branch has been of invaluable assistance in this connection. The press also has presented fair, impartial and wholesome reports of our activities so that employers and the public generally have developed a much more sympathetic attitude to the problems of the ex-prisoner. The production by the national film board of two short ten-minute films, "Penitentiary" and "After Prison, What?", and the circulation of these films through the commercial theatres
[Mr. Garson.l
has also contributed in an effective way toward a better public understanding of the prison problem.
Prisons are inevitably places of considerable tension, but humane and scientific procedures can do much to relieve the tension. It has been effectively proven that a policy of repression or merely of punishment is really not reformative. Penal institutions must, of necessity, be disciplined institutions; but within the framework of good discipline and security it is possible to develop a "treatment" program which is not only scientifically valid but which is humane and Christian in its attitude towards the individual offender. Although we cannot claim as yet to have developed final and effective techniques in the treatment of the criminal, we feel that the policy which has been established, and which is being pressed forward aggressively, has resulted in a much improved institutional morale, and has had results even in a comparatively short time in the reduction of the percentage of penitentiary repeaters. It is our intention to continue the present program in the hope that a period of penitentiary imprisonment may not set a permanent stigma upon a man but that it may perchance provide, for all those who are amenable to treatment, a new view of life and living.
I should like to cite and pay tribute to some of the efforts that are being made to co-operate with us by public spirited organizations outside the prison walls. In December of last year the Rotary club of Kingston sponsored a four-day art exhibit of work done by inmates of Kingston and Collin's Bay penitentiaries and the prison for women. This exhibit was held in the auditorium of one of the Kingston hotels. It was opened at a regular meeting of the Rotary club which, according to reports, was the most largely attended meeting of the year. At a public meeting Professor Andre Bieler of Queen's university spoke on the place of art as a therapeutic device. The exhibit was open for four days and was largely attended by the general public. The entries were judged by Professor Bieler and prizes were awarded. A considerable number of paintings and drawings were sold, the proceeds going to the inmates' trust fund. This exhibit was an impressive demonstration of the talent which is available behind prison walls and, may I say, an impressive demonstration of the public spirit of the Rotary club of Kingston.
At Saskatchewan penitentiary on Saturday night, March 8, the associated commercial travellers sponsored an amateur hour over radio station CKBI, the whole program being

presented by inmates of the penitentiary. A suitable audience was gathered within the prison and the program relayed by telephone line to the broadcasting station. Donations were received over the telephone during the course of the evening and over $1,000 was realized for the work of the anti-tuberculosis league, one donation being wired from South Carolina and the balance coming from all over the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The inmates were naturally happy to be presenting a program over the air, and particularly pleased that they had been able to join in a worth-while community effort.
A final item which I would like to mention was the participation by a male chorus consisting of members of the Catholic and Protestant choirs of Dorchester penitentiary in the maritime music festival. The choir had been trained by the penitentiary organist, and their selections were transmitted by telephone line from the prison to the hall in Moncton where the contest was being held. The adjudicator awarded to the penitentiary choir the highest marks given to competitors in all classes. The program and the remarks of the adjudicator were relayed back to the prison and heard by all inmates over the prison public address system. A radio commentary on this program including a transcription of two numbers sung by the choir, "Drink to me only with thine eyes" and "O sacred head, once wounded" by Bach was heard over a trans-Canada network on Monday night, May 19.
I have mentioned these three events inasmuch as each of them in its own way was significant and unique. They are not isolated incidents but serve to illustrate the value of the recreational and educational programs which are now being introduced into our Canadian penitentiaries. Such programs provide a wholesome release for the tensions inherent in prison life. In some cases such programs have already proven their benefit in enabling released prisoners to gain acceptance in the community on their discharge; the notices regarding such events which have appeared in the public press and over the radio have served to provide for the general public a better understanding of a policy of "treatment" as opposed to the old philosophy of punitive deterrence.
I should like to conclude my remarks by quoting from an editorial which appeared in the Telegraph-Journal of Saint John, New Brunswick, dealing with the music festival and the part taken therein by the prison choir. It is headed "Prison choir in festival" and reads:
For a few days the newspapers were crammed with glaring headlines and frightening stories of prison riots, penitentiary fires and destruction of prison property.
Supply-Justice
It then goes on to list the places where this rioting has occurred. As we all know these details there is no purpose in reading them. The editorial then continues:
In some cases, hardened criminals held guards as hostages as they bargained for better food, liberalized parole systems and the dismissal of allegedly brutal officials. Throughout the land the voice of the convicts was heard. It was a hard voice, driving a hard bargain, and it was not pleasant to hear.
During this trouble it was natural to think of conditions in the maritime penitentiary at Dorchester and to wonder how the prisoners there were being treated. In view of this, it is rather interesting to note that the voice of the inmates of Dorchester will be heard publicly on Thursday night of this week. Only the prisoners of Dorchester will not be screaming out in riot, demanding more food and better conditions-at least, we do not anticipate anything of this nature.
What they will be doing is taking part in the music festival by singing "Drink to me only with thine eyes".
As a matter of fact, the voices heard will be those of twenty-four members of the prison choir which is to compete in the Moncton music festival. The enthusiastic members have been practising for the big night for the last six months. Of course, the prison choir will not be able to attend the music festival, so its selections will be piped direct from Dorchester into the Moncton high school auditorium. Arrangements also have been made for the adjudicator's remarks to be broadcast back to the choir over the prison's radio system.
The inmates, prison officials, the warden and the volunteer choir director all should feel proud of this achievement, which can be hailed as a new advance in prison recreation. It is the first time that a prison choir has competed in a music festival in Canada-and the voices which will be heard will be much more pleasant than the riotous cries which recently rang out-
It then goes on to name the prisons where trouble had occurred.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Is Bordeaux jail under federal or provincial jurisdiction?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is under provincial jurisdiction entirely.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I think this statement by the minister is the best we have had in many years on prison reform. It indicates what is taking place in the prisons today. At other times when the minister's estimates have come up they have been passed before his officials were able to get down from the gallery and we were not given the opportunity to hear a statement of this kind. I think he has made up for it tonight.
I am delighted to know of the progress that is being made. A new commission was set up to do just these things, and I am sure that progress will continue to be made. I have a large penitentiary in my constituency and the welfare of the people, both inside and out, is of interest to me. I have studied the report to which the minister refers and I notice that the warden of that penitentiary

Supply-Justice
reports that far more non-fiction books were being read this year than ever before. It indicates that the training being given to the inmates is not being wasted. Then at page 89 of the report appears the following:
Our classification officer reports that the past year has been a year of marked progress, especially in our discharge program and excellent co-operation has been received from the national employment service, the prisoners' aid society, the Salvation Army, and other social agencies and it is gratifying to report good results on rehabilitation obtained.
These organizations deserve thanks for the work they are carrying on in helping prisoners get back into private life. I was wondering if the minister spent any time in the prisons when he was overseas.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I did not spend any time in the prisons, but I did pay a visit to the minister of justice of the then government of France. He was extremely interested in the work we were doing because our reputation had spread that far. He asked me to prepare a report upon what had been accomplished. I did that when I got back, but in the meantime the government had fallen.


William Scottie Bryce: The minister, being a good Manitoban like myself, I know would do nothing wrong that would get him into prison and I did not mean that. When I was over there a short time ago I was able through the kindness of the secretary for Scotland to visit some of the prisons. I was really astonished at how far they have gone in their work. I visited one prison at Peterhead in the north of Scotland, and I was told that they had not used the solitary confinement cell for seven years. Their treatment of prisoners is showing good results and I was surprised at the extent they have gone. They even have a bowling green and the inmates play golf and football. These men were allowed out to work on farms and brought back at night. They started to build the harbour fifty years ago, and it is not completed yet so there is still a lot of work ahead of them, but the farm work is more appealing than working on the harbour.
I visited the prison at Aberdeen, in which there is a different class of prisoner. The prisoners there find employment in making fish nets, and when I was there they were making fish nets to the accompaniment of radio music. I was assured by the governor of the prison that since this new system had been adopted the production of nets had increased by 50 per cent. I could go on for some time giving such details, because I spent quite a few days trying to find out things about the Borstal system and that sort of thing. They are doing a wonderful job. You have no idea how pleased I am to know that my own Canada is doing something
IMr. Bryce.]
along that line too, and I think we shall get good results. If these men could be reformed so they did not return to prison the taxpayers of the country would be saved a great deal of money spent in training custodians, wardens and that sort of thing.
I want to ask the minister about the 48-hour week. I asked him about it before, and he told me it is being considered. I had expected that by now a 44-hour week would be in vogue. Some problems had to be considered but I know some of the men are working 51 hours a week. Those are the men who go on duty at 7.30 in the morning and come off at 5.00 at night. The regulations state that if a custodian, or whatever you like to call him, works more than 3 hours overtime at any one time, then the department allows him for the overtime. These fellows only work a half hour per day overtime, which amounts to 3 hours per week, but they never get the 3 hours straight which would enable them to claim that time. I want the minister to know I fully realize that these men are on call in case of emergency, riot, fire or anything like that, so do not confuse the issue. I am considering the ordinary routine of the prison.
Then, too, the wages have been raised over the last four years but they have never kept pace with the wages paid to others. For instance, a man starting on the Winnipeg police force will receive $213.44 a month. This man who is a guard only receives $186 at the start. I think it is time wages were pushed up a little bit more to bring them at least close to the wages paid policemen. There is a difference now of $27.44 per month or $329.28 for twelve months. Possibly there should be a difference, but it should be not quite as great.
I should like to know also how many indeterminate prisoners there are. Has any consideration been given to doing away with corporal punishment? The other day I received a brief from the welfare council, and I was surprised to find that this form of punishment has been eliminated in every civilized country in the world except Canada and certain of the states in the United States. This brief was forwarded by the Canadian welfare council, 245 Cooper Street, Ottawa, and it is over the signature of R. E. T. Davis, executive director. Will the minister state what consideration has been given to eliminating corporal punishment in this country?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Dealing with the hon. member's questions in order, I wonder if I could begin by having him clear up a point for me. Does the member of the Winnipeg police force of whom he spoke receive any living accommodation in addition to his salary?


William Scottie Bryce: The wardens at Stony Mountain pay their rent, too.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The information I have is that the guards who come on the force at Stony Mountain-I presume that is the penitentiary the hon. member is interested in-start at $202 per month. If they are single men and living in, they get their living accommodation as well. I believe, therefore, that the two wage rates compare quite favourably.
Now with regard to the indeterminate sentences, there are 25 such prisoners in the entire penitentiary system, that is including all the penitentiaries in Canada.
With regard to the matter of corporal punishment, that is a matter which is covered by the Criminal Code, the revision of which should be back from the Senate one of these days and my hon. friend can speak to this section at that time.


Mr. George:: I should like to make one or two observations about what the minister said in connection with the maritime penitentiary, and the choir which took part in the music festival. This festival was sponsored by radio station CKCW, Moncton. The Prime Minister opened that festival, and he paid fitting tribute to the members of the choir. As the minister has said, this choir made the highest marks of any entered. It is interesting to note that one of the members of the choir had been discharged from the penitentiary, and in order to take part in the competition he returned to the penitentiary at his own expense. I believe the warden and his staff are to be congratulated on making these facilities available to the choir.
There is one other point that has not been mentioned very often, and that is the rehabilitation of these men when they are discharged. The John Howard society and the unemployment insurance commission are doing an excellent job, and they are to be congratulated. The work must be effective, because the population of the penitentiary is gradually decreasing.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask three or four questions. First of all I should like to make one or two general observations. Though we all sympathize fully with the aims of the penitentiary administration, particularly since we received the recommendations of the Archambault report, I think we all feel that the old idea that it was nothing but punishment and protecting society by shutting up people behind walls has now gone, and we recognize that what we are trying to do is not only protect society but turn the offenders into better citizens. At the same time, I think we must not get to the stage where we talk about it as if being there was a reward for meritorious
Supply-Justice
service. I am sometimes just a little bit afraid that we are getting sentimental about it. For example, I am all in favour of education and proper recreation-


An hon. Member:: Training.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, training; but when I hear of teams from the penal institutions taking part in city leagues, I am just a little bit troubled by this thought. I am not thinking so much about the inmates themselves; I am thinking about the people who play with them. Are we making this into something which is trivial? Are we in danger of sentimentalizing about i-t? I should like to hear what the minister has to say about that matter. I think it is a great pity if we are getting sentimental about this thing. After all, it is not a sentimental matter. It is a serious matter. We all agree that we must behave in a humane manner and must do our best to retrain these people. On the other hand, as I say, I think we should keep the thought clear in our minds that this is a serious matter and that these men are there because of the things they have done against society.
May I now ask one or two questions. From the report I am not clear to what extent young offenders are segregated. Will the minister say a word about that matter?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: To reply to my hon. friend's question, the answer is that in the large institutions-for example, at St. Vincent de Paul-we have the federal training centre that I was referring to just tonight, which has been built for the express purpose of segregating youthful offenders and also those who seem to offer better hope of rehabilitation than do others. That is also true of Kingston and Collin's Bay. With regard to the other penitentiaries, we segregate the living quarters of the juvenile offenders and maintain that segregation in all other respects as far as our physical facilities permit us to do so. But the limitation there is simply that of our physical facilities.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask further whether the objection to young offenders being with the old lags is not so strong that segregation ought to be a matter of top priority, almost ahead of everything, in order to keep the young people by themselves. I should like to have the department's opinion on that matter.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think I cannot emphasize too strongly that the principle of segregation is strictly followed in their living quarters; and that is where they spend a great deal of their time.

Supply-Justice


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is that segregation of living quarters followed everywhere?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. As I said before, where we have large institutions like St. Vincent de Paul and its associate federal training centre, and Kingston penitentiary and its associate, Collin's Bay, there is complete segregation; because the one institution in each case is just for the one class of offenders. In the other institutions we carry out the policy of segregation to the fullest extent which is possible, having regard to our physical facilities. In all cases we provide for segregation of living quarters.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And of work?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; not of work.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the
minister not think that segregation is the most important of all?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not entirely. The commissioner tells me that some of the young offenders are pretty hard characters. He says that in some cases they are just as hard as the old ones.
With regard to the suggestion by my hon. friend to the effect that we are going sentimental, if he will permit me to do so I must repudiate it. I do not think we are going sentimental. We have not at any point gone beyond the stage where we can justify this thing in terms of dollars and cents if not on any other basis; because as my hon. friend knows, when crime and the incidence of crime is not on the decline, the rate of recidivism in our Canadian penitentiaries in the last five years has declined from 45 per cent in 1947 to 40 per cent in 1952.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In that connection, will the minister turn to paragraph 31 on recidivism, because I do not understand some of the figures. Will the minister per cent in 1947 to 40 per cent in 1952.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: These figures I have just quoted are the rates of recidivism for the penitentiaries. These are not the rates applicable to any of the provincial jails. I maintain that in a matter of this kind-and I think my hon. friend will agree-the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If at a time when crime is not on the decline and society tends to produce more crime and more criminals we can reduce the rate of recidivism quite substantially over a period of five years in our penitentiaries, I think that fact shows that we are not pampering them very much. We are producing a good result.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to correct one impression that I did not intend to give the minister. I was not accusing the

department of being sentimental. I was saying I was a little bit afraid that there might be sentimentality in certain quarters. I was merely asking the question prompted by the incident to which he referred. Will the minister explain for me paragraph 31 at page 12? First of all it says:
The general percentage of recidivism-all types of sentences-is 76-3 (previous year, 77-1).
Then it goes on and gives certain details. Then it gives the percentage of penitentiary recidivism as 38-71. Does that top figure of 76-3, which struck me as an alarming one, apply to all types?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That seems to be a large figure. Is there any explanation for it? If you have three quarters or over who are repeaters, it seems rather disappointing.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is quite true. But the figure I am speaking about is the figure which is a measure of the effectiveness and efficiency of the penal institutions. We cannot take any responsibility at all for any of the other institutions.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If I may, I should like to ask just one other question. Will the minister say something more about education? I take it that education is limited as to hours, because I presume the men have their fixed hours of work. I should like to know what hours are available for education, and I should like to have some significant figures showing to what extent it is availed of. I should like to know what tests the department have. I have no doubt they have very significant tests which they can give to us so we may have an idea as to what is really being done here.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think perhaps the best way I could iput it for my hon. friend would be to refer him to the section in the report which outlines in considerable detail what the educational facilities are. If he will turn to page 15 he will see, commencing there and going on for several pages, to the top of page 18, a full statement on the educational facilities at the penitentiaries.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Chairman, I think one thing this discussion this evening has brought out is the fact that here we have a report that deserves much more study and much closer examination than we are able to give it in a committee of the house such as the one we have at the present time. I would suggest to the minister that some thought be given to presenting this annual report to a special committee before which officials of the minister's department can be invited

as witnesses and who can answer from firsthand knowledge just such questions as those which the hon. member for Greenwood has been raising tonight. There is a value in giving members of the house a greater opportunity than a committee of the whole affords to learn more of what is being done by the officials of the minister's department in connection with our penitentiaries. I notice on page 8 of the report, for instance, that during the past year increasing efforts have been made to gain the interest and co-operation of the general public in the activities within the institution. My suggestion is that in order to gain the interest and co-operation of members of the house in the activities that are going on within these institutions a report such as this be presented to a special committee of the house.
I want to congratulate the officials on the presentation of this report. There is certainly plenty of evidence that the minister has in his department men and women of imagination and intelligence, and with a good deal of sympathy for the people with whom they are dealing. What I am particularly delighted with is the section of the report dealing with educational activities within these institutions. I think one of the most remarkable bits of information is that part of the report which states that since 1947 only 15 per cent of those who have graduated with vocational training courses have got into trouble with the authorities after their release, and that 95 [DOT] 6 per cent of those who graduated during the year with which this report deals became non-repeaters. That I think is a remarkable record, and one for which the minister and his officials are to be complimented.
Incidentally, I might remark that another reason for sending this report to a committee would be to get more up-to-date information. Nothing in this report pertains to anything that has taken place within these institutions since March, 1951, fourteen months ago. I note in one place, for instance, that at the time this report was written plans were being drawn for a new building at Kingston penitentiary. The report said it was hoped that construction would commence on this project during the summer of 1951. I would like to know just what progress has been made on that building. The minister might give us that information.
I would like to know to what extent the educational work within these institutions is hampered by lack of facilities, equipment and accommodation. I can understand that officials of the department are very hesitant about including such information as that in the report. If we could get some of these officials before a committee of the house we
Supply-Justice
could find out just how much more we in this parliament could do to promote the good work of those who are carrying on within the institutions.
Can the minister tell us briefly just what new facilities, equipment and buildings have been made available for those who were attempting to carry on educational work in those institutions during the past year.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Since that report?


Joseph William Noseworthy: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I may say to begin with that the building to which my hon. friend referred as having been mentioned in that report is now under construction, but it is not completed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister two or three questions. First of all I wonder whether the federal training centre associated with St. Vincent de Paul and any other similar institutions have been in operation long enough for him to give us the rate of recidivism in connection with them as compared with the rate generally.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well the federal training centre at St. Vincent de Paul opened only in April, 1952, so it obviously has no statistics. The senior assistant commissioner tells me that at Collin's Bay over a period of 15 years, from 1930 to 1945, he has made a calculation of the rate of recidivism, that is of those who having been discharged from Collin's Bay, have gone out and got into trouble and come back into the penitentiary system. That would not include those who may have got into trouble and got into a provincial jail- that would not turn up in our statistics-the figure for that, as compared with the 40 per cent and 45 per cent I was mentioning a moment ago, was 20 per cent. That is the graduates, if you like, of Collin's Bay and the like came back to the penitentiary system to the extent of 20 per cent over a period of 15 years, from 1930 to 1945.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a question or two with respect to the St. Vincent de Paul training centre. He said there were about 200 young men there now; that the accommodation when the institution is completed will be around 600. Will the other 400 be transferred from that same penitentiary, or will they be transferred from other parts of Canada? The same type of question could apply to Collin's Bay.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The information I have at the present time is that we have accommodation for 400 people, and of that total accommodation one building accommodating 100 people is set aside temporarily for administration. Therefore this leaves us with a net accommodation of 300 which is available at the moment. In that accommodation for 300 we

Supply-Justice
have segregated, as they came from St. Vincent de Paul, suitable convicts for that type of training provided there. We will continue that policy until we have the 300 filled. By that time we hope we will have the space for the 600 completed and available, and we then can consider transferring prisoners from other institutions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there any similar accommodation or institution for prisoners in other parts of Canada? For example, I understand there is no such institution as a federal training centre associated with Stony Mountain. Meantime prisoners from there are not being transferred, although they might be in the same category. Is that the case?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I said in reply to a question asked earlier by the hon. member for Greenwood, we bring our program forward as we are able to make the physical facilities available to carry it into effect. We cannot go faster than that. We can transfer from other penal institutions these special types of prisoners only up to the limits of the accommodation we have for them.


William Joseph Browne: I listened with interest to what was said by the Minister of Justice. I was surprised that so much stress should be laid on these improvements in connection with penitentiaries, because I thought all these things had been put into effect long ago. The Archambault report came out in 1947, five years ago. That seems to me a long time to elapse before recommendations receive consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have you read the 1919 platform of the Liberal party?


William Joseph Browne: Would the minister look at page 52 of the report to which he referred, which gives the previous convictions in respect of eight penitentiaries. With respect to Newfoundland he will find that out of 30 inmates there were 18 with no previous convictions. I believe that is the highest proportion shown. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to St. Vincent de Paul. This table shows that at that penitentiary there were 72-7 per cent recidivists, while in Newfoundland it is only 40 per cent.
In Newfoundland we have only one penitentiary, and I do not believe it could be so described, to use the strict sense of the word, because it also takes care of those people who are sent from the magistrate's court in St. John's. How does the minister manage to keep the penitentiary records segregated, and what proportion of penitentiary costs are borne by the federal government, and what proportion by the provincial government?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In Newfoundland the federal government pays the provincial government for all the prisoners in the jail there who are sentenced for more than two years or who, in other words, would otherwise be eligible for incarceration in a penitentiary. We pay Newfoundland on a per diem per prisoner basis.


William Joseph Browne: At one time there was a prison logging camp. Is that still being operated under the federal government?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is a provincial government operation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to ask a question concerning a problem of great importance, one that is broader than just the aspect pertaining to penitentiaries administration. I refer to the problem of the treatment of sex offenders. What progress is being made in this field? I am aware of the report submitted to the minister's department over a year ago by the John Howard society of Ontario, which dealt with legal and psychiatric aspects of the problem and was accompanied by proposed legislative enactments. Would the minister give us a report on this subject, please?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If I am thinking of the same report the hon. member has in mind, the one which came out about a year ago, my recollection is that it was more or less factual, and did not contain any recommendations for treatment. It just reviewed the facts. Speaking also from memory I believe we made provision in the law two years ago

and the hon. member will recall this-whereby courts could impose a special type of indeterminate sentence in respect of sexual offenders. The last time I had occasion to check it up it seemed to me that very small use was being made of that legislation. Of course it is a straight question of the administration of law and the exercise of discretion by the courts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has consideration been given to the amendment made at that time? I remember offering some criticism of the amendment in the house, and further amendments were introduced as the legislation passed through committee of the whole on that occasion. Is that legislation under review now to determine its effectiveness, or to what extent further progress can be made, either by legislative or other means?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In the normal course of events I think this matter came under the consideration of the commission dealing with the consolidation and revision of the new Criminal Code. The Criminal Code bill will return to

this chamber in due course from the Senate, and can be considered at that time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Could not the minister be a little more informative in a general way as to how the department plans to deal with this problem? This is a serious matter which has been considered by the house on one or two previous occasions. It is causing a great deal of concern not only here but throughout the country. I think the committee ought to have an informative statement as to what the government is doing to meet this problem.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think my hon. friend will agree that the problem divides itself in this way. First of all there is the enactment of the necessary criminal laws to deal with offenders of that kind. This would be part of the criminal law, and its enactment is the responsibility of this parliament. Then the administration of such criminal law is a matter for crown attorneys appointed by the provinces or municipalities. The adjudication of the offences charged is carried out by courts appointed by the provinces. If the courts have invoked the provisions we have made in the law especially for these sexual offenders, the offenders go back in some cases to provincial prisons and in other cases to penitentiaries, with indeterminate sentences. When they come to us-and that is what we are now discussing-we are more fortunate than the average provincial prison because we have a psychiatrist in our service who can give consideration to these offenders and give as good therapeutic treatment as can be devised for their cure. I think it might be possible for greater use to be made of these indeterminate sentences for sexual offenders. But that is a matter of administration of the law, and not of any defect in the law itself.


Mr. Churchill:: I have a few words to say on this item. Unfortunately I have not been able to go through the entire report, but perhaps members will be pleased because for that reason my remarks will therefore be shorter. For a number of years I have been following the policy with respect to penitentiaries, and I wish to add a word of commendation for the implementation, so far as it has gone, of the Archambault report. I think great progress has been made along two lines, general care of and attention to inmates of the institutions, and particularly the training program for the guards. That has been a most useful program indeed, and possibly has done more than anything else to make the administration of the penitentiaries more efficient than was the case in the past.
I am interested in one particular problem, and perhaps the minister can give me some
* Supply-Justice
information along this line. I note with interest the educational program within the institutions. I think that is very much to the good, but for the last four or five years now I have wanted to secure information as to the educational qualifications of the inmates on admission. I do not see that this information is available in the report, and I hope it can be made available in the future. There are one or two sections of the report dealing with education to which I should like to draw attention. On page 15 of the report, paragraph 48 reads as follows:
Classes for illiterates and low literates continue in all penitentiaries on the same basis as they have been conducted for many years.
What strikes me as odd about that is that although there are only eight institutions with 4,817 inmates, yet in each institution there are obviously illiterates and low literates, and I think they are out of proportion when compared with illiterates and low literates in the rest of the population. Then I note that on page 18 it mentions the fact that the schoolteacher at Kingston penitentiary made a survey of the educational qualifications of the inmates there, and his findings are as follows:
per cent
Illiterates	 3-7
Grade 7 or less	approximately 35 0
Grade 8, but not a full year at high school 30-0
Some high school	 25-0
Completed high school	 4-0
One or more years at	university	 1*7
Then our attention is drawn on page 24 to a survey at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, and paragraph 8 on that page reads as follows:
Seven hundred and fifty cases were studied with regard to educational standing. Sixty-one per cent were reported as VI grade or below, 34 per cent from grades VI to IX and 5 per cent tenth grade or higher. These figures are on the basis of inmates' own reports and may therefore perhaps indicate academic achievement somewhat higher than is actually the case.
My point is that I think we should have the educational qualifications of the inmates in these institutions made available to us. I have not the facts but I think the standard of education of the inmates is below that for the country as a whole. I believe there is a distinct correlation between crime and lack of education. Consequently I would be pleased if the minister could give us any more information on that point than I have been able to discover, or his assurance that for the future information along that line will be compiled. After all, these men in the penitentiaries are costing us more than any other individuals in Canada. It has always seemed to me that it would be wiser to spend more money on education and eliminate the

Supply-Justice
illiterates rather than keep them in penitentiaries for years at heavy expense and then try to educate them.
I feel that the follow-up program after men leave the penitentiaries is good as far as it goes, and I think a great deal of credit is due to those people who, through various societies, have interested themselves in men who are released from penitentiaries, who find them employment and assist them to become members of society again. I have talked to people who have been doing that work for years, and they have pointed out to me the extreme difficulties involved in some instances in getting men settled in society again, although sometimes it is not too difficult. My feeling is that in some way greater responsibility should be accepted by the department for completing the rehabilitation of the men who are released. After all we have a very fine program now within the institutions which prepares them for their return to society. After they have served their terms and paid their debt to society they should be accepted again in so far as it is possible. With a proper program of returning men to their positions in society we might have fewer men returning to the penitentiaries.
I think it is at this point that our program is perhaps somewhat weak. If the department could see its way clear to institute a follow-up program that would look after these men more adequately from the time of their release from penitentiary and for such period as is necessary afterwards, it would be advantageous. On page 29 of the report I notice that paragraph 115 deals with the after care of prisoners and reads as follows:
Following the policy established initially in 194849 federal grants-in-aid have been made available to recognized prisoners' aid organizations, rendering effective service to prison dischargees. A total of some $27,250 was expended for this purpose.
I wonder if that amount of money has been adequate to meet the need. If more assistance were provided at that point we might save at the other end. Instead of having to pay out the taxpayers' money to maintain recidivists in our penitentiaries, would it not be better to spend a little more at an earlier stage and make sure they did not return?


William Scottie Bryce: How many of the penitentiaries are on a five and a half day week?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: All of them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have had quite an ample discussion, but I think we should have some comment or reply from the minister in connection with the well-considered remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: 1 certainly would not want to overlook my hon. friend who was a colleague of mine in the Manitoba house for some time, but I did not understand that he wished me to reply. These prisoners' aid societies operate on the basis of grants which they receive from us and also from the provinces because they also place prisoners discharged from the provincial jails. Being charitable organizations they have endowments and the like of their own. My hon. friend has suggested that we might ourselves deal with all discharged prisoners but I am told, and this *can be readily understood, that in many cases prisoners prefer to deal with a voluntary agency.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was not expecting the department to deal with them; I was suggesting that the department be more generous in the assistance given to the voluntary agencies.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think I may say that we have been satisfying the requests of these agencies. My hon. friend has had some experience in that field and he will know that agencies of this sort usually are not too reticent about making requests. This amount has been increasing as time went on and I have no doubt that if the volume of work increases the grants may be increased accordingly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Could the minister say something with regard to the educational statistics I was asking about?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think my hon. friend's suggestion is good. As far as I am concerned I shall be glad to discuss it with the officials to see whether it is feasible to introduce it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do the voluntary agencies take in hand everyone discharged from the institutions, or do they just do their best? Do they assume the responsibility of trying to assist everyone who comes out and is in neeed of assistance?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The voluntary agencies, the Salvation Army and the national employment service provide service for all discharged prisoners who wish it. We do not compel prisoners to receive such services but it is known to all prisoners that this service is available. I might point out that when a man comes into a penitentiary he is interviewed by a classification officer and his strong and weak points as well as his background and so on are carefully analysed. This personnel officer and the chaplain as well as the psychiatrist, if necessary, are in touch with the prisoner during his period of incarceration.
Some time before his discharge he goes, if he wishes, not only before the classification

officer but before a representative of the voluntary agency; and the problems he is likely to face when discharged are discussed with him. The classification officer maintains contact at all times with the voluntary agencies and the employment office. Thus if the prisoner has any interest at all in getting re-established he is strongly encouraged before leaving the penitentiary to go to these outside agencies, and in a great many cases he does go. My information is that the facilities provided by the voluntary agencies and the Salvation Army, working in co-operation with the national employment service, are available to every prisoner who seeks them.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the department able to keep track of these men and indicate the percentage of those who leave who are able to find employment and sustain themselves?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We get periodic reports from these societies on the men who are in course of re-establishing themselves. That may continue over such period as the agency thinks it is proper to keep us advised. I do not think we can take figures disclosed by a mass of these reports and treat them as statistics. There is not only the follow-up system after discharge, there is the psychological aspect of the treatment which commences from the time the man enters the institution. The classification officer, the psychiatrist and the chaplain are all in contact with the man during his prison life and that contact is maintained by these voluntary agencies after his discharge.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister should be able to state how many avail themselves of the services offered by these voluntary agencies when they leave.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think we have any statistics on that. My hon. friend is a past master in statistics, if he will permit me to say so, and he knows that if you are going to use figures for statistical purposes they must possess accuracy. We cannot always get figures of that sort.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can the
minister not say whether it is 25, 50 or 75 per cent?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid we could not
supply my hon. friend with those figures. The figure I gave on recidivism should reflect that. When a man does not come back to the penitentiary it indicates in most cases that he has got himself established.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Near the bottom of page 229 is an item "grants to recognized prisoners'
Supply-Justice
aid societies, $35,000". Will the minister indicate how that sum is to be distributed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: For the year 1951-52 the
following contributions were made:
Canadian penal association	 $1,000
John Howard society, Nova Scotia,	 1,000
John Howard society, New Brunswick ..	1,000
John Howard society, Quebec	 1,750
John Howard society, Ontario	 7,000
John Howard society, Saskatchewan ...	1,000
John Howard society, Alberta	 2,000
John Howard society, British Columbia..	3,000
John Howard society, Vancouver island	500
Soci6te d'orientation et de rehabilitation
sociale	 5,000
Service de readaptation social, inc.,
Quebec	 500
Salvation Army aid service	 2,000
Canadian welfare association, Winnipeg	3,000
Catholic rehabilitation service, Montreal	250


Donald Methuen Fleming: The amount spent was $29,000; the item last year was $35,000. Does that mean there was $5,500 that was appropriated and was not distributed?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are asking for $35,000 again this year. How do you propose to distribute it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That will depend upon the reports we get. The grants are proportionate to the service received. We pay this out in proportion to the reports we get from these societies, and they will determine the amount we pay. We estimate that it will not exceed $35,000, and that is the significance of that figure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You estimate that it will or will not exceed $35,000?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We estimate that it will not exceed that. We provide that so we will be able to meet all claims.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Have any of these societies received compensation for prisoners who are released on parole in their charge? Quite often prisoners are placed on parole in charge of the officer of some society that is aiding prisoners. Is any payment made by the government for that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, not for paroled prisoners.


William Joseph Browne: Is there any vote there for the John Howard society of St. John's, Newfoundland? If there is not, could that society make application for it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is one of the reasons we put a little extra money in this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Justice
185.	Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries, including supplies and services relating thereto; administration, operation, repair and upkeep of buildings, works and equipment; maintenance, discharge and transfer of inmates; compensation to discharged inmates permanently disabled while in penitentiaries, $7,963,398.
Donald Methuen Fleming: In the details on page 232 there is an item about half way down the page, "gratuity to retiring officers, $21,000". What is the nature and basis of the gratuities to retired officers of the penitentiaries?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is a provision which is made for employees who, for one reason or another, did not elect to be contributors to the pension plan, and for whom a cash bonus is paid in a lump sum upon retirement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the basis of the gratuity?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: For the first full five years of service it is half the monthly salary. Then for each year after that it is one month's salary.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This, I gather, is entirely noncontributory on the part of the officer concerned?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is correct, but it involves the state in a smaller expenditure than if the officer had elected to take pension.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the reason for allowing these persons to elect not to participate in the regular contributory pension? Is it because they are recruited into the service at an advanced age, or what is the reason?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is a hangover from the pre-pension period. Pensions have been compulsory since 1924, and these are a few individual cases that are a hangover from before that time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are they all retired now, or are some still in the service?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There are still a few. As the hon. member can see, in relation to the entire service there are very few.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Can the minister give us more details about the item on page 233 for construction and improvements-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Those are related to item
186.	Shall we carry item 185?


Mr. McLure:: No. With reference to Dorchester penitentiary, I notice that the cost is nearly a million dollars, is it not?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is the operation and maintenance cost. Is the hon. member looking at page 232, down toward the bottom of the page, the details for operation and maintenance of the penitentiary, $960,708.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That is the total cost of running that penitentiary, is it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right; it is the total cost of operation and maintenance.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: In connection with the purchase of food supplies, have you a regular purchasing agent?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, we have a regular purchasing agent for everything.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: You mean a government
agent, of course?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He is a full-time member of the department. The hon. member, if he reflects upon it, will see that this man has a very big job superintending the purchase of supplies for all these institutions.


Mr. Pouliot:: If he does not change the menu, then he has simplified his job. What is the menu of the prisoners in penitentiaries besides porridge?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, it is a serious question. When there are difficulties in these places, members of parliament should be in a position to answer their constituents as to what food is given in the penitentiaries. I answer that it is good food, but I want to know what it is.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If the hon. member will excuse me for a minute, I shall answer a question that was asked a while ago. The breakdown the hon. member wanted concerning page 233, construction or acquisition of buildings and works, amounting to $1,090,400, is as follows:
Kingston	 ?	62,575
St. Vincent de Paul	 51,350
Dorchester	 53,870
Manitoba	 27,930
British Columbia	 65,200
Saskatchewan	 47,375
Collin's Bay	 82,400
Federal training centre	 699,700
Total	 $1,090,400


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, I want to know what it is the prisoners have to eat besides soup and porridge.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My information is that it varies from week to week and from penitentiary to penitentiary. We do not have a set of menus here tonight, but I could get one for the hon. member and send it to him.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall tell the minister that the commissioner is right there. He must have visited a penitentiary and must be in a position to state to the minister what food is given there. I know quite well that the minister is not supposed to know any more about it than I do. On the other hand, there is a gentleman in front of him who is paid

a very high salary by the state in order to give information when he comes here. If the gentleman is not in a position to tell the minister what food is served to the prisoners in the penitentiaries, it is of no use.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, not a bit of it. I want an answer to that question. If I get no answer, I will make another speech. There is no general who will prevent me from making a speech on it.


An hon. Member:: Stand.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Offer to table a menu.


Jean-François Pouliot: What is it? Is it pepper and salt and mustard?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think the difficulty here is this. I imagine that it would be quite an easy matter for the officials to guess as to what the breakfast was, what the luncheon was and so on; but they are both exceedingly scrupulous gentlemen and they do not want to give any information that is not absolutely correct. These menus vary from time to time. There is not a fixed, set breakfast every day, or a set luncheon or a set dinner. I think that much the most accurate way of getting the information would be to have a sample of a week's menu from the penitentiaries as a whole. I think I could file that on the orders of the day tomorrow, if that would be satisfactory.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister very much. I appreciate what he has said. I am sure that tomorrow we will have it, but I am greatly disappointed not to have it tonight. I direct the minister's attention to the fact that the appointment of the commissioner was so greatly publicized throughout the country that it was expected that he would be able to inform the minister with regard to the food that is served at the penitentiaries when the estimates came before the house. But here he is in front of the minister and we have to wait until tomorrow in order to find out whether something more than porridge, bread and soup is given to the prisoners.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We shall have fish here tomorrow.


Jean-François Pouliot: No; I am serious about the matter. It may seem strange to some hon. members. We ask for some information. We have here the gentleman in charge, whose appointment has been greatly publicized; yet when we want some information, we cannot get it. I do not blame the minister, but I am greatly surprised that the commissioner general is not able to supply the minister with the information I want to have with regard to the food of the prisoners.
55704-172i	[DOT]
Supply-Resources and Development


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am afraid the minister did not grasp the purport of my question. What I wanted to know was the nature of the major new construction projects at these penitentiaries, the nature of the improvements and the new equipment that is being provided.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As my hon. friend will appreciate, the fact is that these amounts,-for example, for Manitoba the figure is something of the order of $27,000-are for small repair jobs and the like. I have the full details in a black book here and I shall be glad to show them to my hon. friend after the sitting this evening; but to read them into the record would, I am afraid, be a fairly long and tedious job. You can see from the amounts this book will show that there are no major construction jobs. Of the whole lot, the only one that was a large figure was that for the federal training centre at St. Vincent de Paul. All the rest are less than $100,000; and most of them are substantially less than that. It is just a matter of renovation, repair of plumbing and that sort of thing throughout these penitentiaries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
374. Departmental administration, $403,389.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to ask the minister for some information with regard to films. Under the details I notice that films are mentioned at pages 432, 434 and also 435. I wonder why he separates them like that? Can the minister give us an explanation? Can he tell us why he does not put them under one item?


Robert Henry Winters: The films are listed under the different branches of the department in order to give the maximum breakdown for each branch. They could just as easily be consolidated, but it seems to me that it is more informative to have a breakdown of each branch shown separately.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If the minister will look at page 435, under national parks, he will see that he has films under administration. Should not that item under administration be under a separate department instead of under administration?


Robert Henry Winters: That is simply a heading in this particular case. It is not contemplated that any films will be made. It is just an item covering general advertising.


William Joseph Browne: I should like to speak for a few moments about the inactivity or indecision of the department in arriving at a site for the national park in Newfoundland. I understood from the minister on previous occasions that we were considering
2730	HOUSE OF
Supply-Resources and Development various sites. I mentioned to him the Salmonier area. I believe he has also had under consideration an area in the neighbourhood of Bonavista from which the Secretary of State comes, as well as an area on the west coast which was recommended by my colleague the hon. member for St. John's East.
I still think the Salmonier area is the best one for the national park because it is on the peninsula of Avalon which has the large portion of the population concentrated in close proximity. It is an attractive place for the people living in St. John's, and for visitors who come there. Visitors to that area are more numerous than in any other section of the country. I understand that a section of that area which was occupied by the provincial department of natural resources is now being vacated, and that the property they have managed there will be for sale. It might be worth considering in view of the fact that the place is well wooded, has numerous lakes, has a large quantity of wildlife and is exceedingly attractive from the point of view of holidaying.
Another matter I want to bring to the attention of the minister is the question of national historic sites in Newfoundland. I understand an organization has been formed which has been making certain researches into this matter. I should like to know whether anything has been done with regard to three places in the constituency of the hon. member for Trinity-Conception. I refer to Cupid's, Port de Grave and Bristols Hope, which are three of the most important places in Newfoundland, dating back to early in the seventeenth century when the first effort at colonization was made there. Of course St. John's takes precedence, being the place which was first discovered; and Bonavista has a claim to recognition, because it was the first place sighted in 1497. But Cupid's is the place where John Guy in 1610 attempted to found a colony. He lived there for several years, and afterward John Mason set up a colony in Bristols Hope near Harbour Grace, and there I believe the first white child in this great area from the Atlantic to the Pacific was born somewhere around 1621. These are places which should certainly be marked.
Then we have Ferryland, where Lord Baltimore attempted to found a settlement in 1622. Of course there is Placentia, which was the headquarters of the French government in Newfoundland, and which was also visited by one of the bishops from Quebec of whose diocese it formed part. I believe some mark has been placed in Placentia to notify people who visit there of its historic importance and its historic connec-


tions with the province of Quebec and the officials of Quebec. I wonder whether the minister can tell us anything about these three points.
Now with regard to the highroad. I note by the report of the minister for 1951 that very little had been done up to that time. When he replies can he tell us how much has been done during the year that ended on March 31, 1952? From the figures I have seen I am surprised at the slow progress that is being made in connection with it. Perhaps he can give us the reason for it.


Robert Henry Winters: I did not quite hear what the hon. member was speaking about in the last part of his remarks.


William Joseph Browne: About the highroad, the trans-Canada highway. I had pointed out that, according to the report for 1951, only about 120 miles had been completed out of 4,000.


Robert Henry Winters: Well, Mr. Chairman, the first item raised was the contemplated national park in Newfoundland. I must inform the committee that the situation there is about the same as it was last year when .the estimates of this department were before the house, and for the same set of reasons I enunciated then. A number of localities were reviewed. Under the arrangements by which national parks are established, the provincial government donates the property. We have not yet arrived at the stage where the government of Newfoundland has offered to donate any particular area for the purpose of a national park.
Ini the next item the hon. member referred to a number of potentially important historic sites.


William Joseph Browne: Actually important, not potentially important.


Robert Henry Winters: Potentially important for consideration by the national historic sites and monuments board. I am able to inform the committee that the board is meeting in Ottawa at the present time. Most of these sites are before the board and are being considered at the present time. It remains to be seen whether they will be designated as being of national importance. That is why I used the words "potentially important as national historic sites".
Then with regard to the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland, the last figures we have show that as of May 24, 1952, the total commitment for contracts in the province of Newfoundland is $5,116,372.90. Canada's share, being exactly half of that, is $2,558,156.45 and to date Canada has paid to the government of Newfoundland $1,960,365.79.

Supply-Resources and Development


William Joseph Browne: Can the Mr. Hodgson:	The department must have
minister give that in terms of mileage? What a great number of reports if six editors are mileage has been approved?	required.


Robert Henry Winters: Might I suggest that we could make a little more progress if we followed the items through vote by vote. That would save me searching ahead for the answers to various questions.
During the fiscal year 1951-52 contracts were awarded in Newfoundland for the grading of 28 miles. There was no paving; they were not at that stage. Some 12-4 miles of grading have been completed. That is the program as I have it.


William Joseph Browne: What is estimated to be done in the coming year?


Robert Henry Winters: I wonder whether we might wait until the trans-Canada vote is before the committee, and I shall give it then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before we leave this item can we have the picture made clear as to when we shall be able to discuss housing in the committee of supply? I have in mind the fact that certain items have been referred to the committee on banking and commerce. That does make it a bit difficult to discuss housing now. I am sure we would be willing to wait until a later date if we could have the assurance that if we do we shall be able to discuss all aspects of housing, and I would hope that on that occasion the minister will be prepared to give a statement on the matter.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be glad to give that assurance. The reason we did what we did, and referred these items to the committee on banking and commerce was not to make it difficult for hon. members but rather to make it easy for them. We wish to give them an opportunity to consider all aspects of housing, including the votes before parliament at the present time. I might say that a number of hon. members spoke to me and asked that this might be done to make for better consideration of the items, since the committee was sitting anyway. When the banking and commerce committee reports the committee of the whole will have ample opportunity to consider the housing items.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: In the details with respect to this item I see an amount for six editors. Who are these editors?


Robert Henry Winters: During the course of our operations we are required to turn out a considerable number of reports from various branches. As the name implies, these editors are the persons who edit the reports required to be turned out from time to time.


Robert Henry Winters: We do have a considerable number.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Is the minister sure that his department is not doing some advertising for the benefit of the government?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would direct the minister's attention to the total for the whole department as it appears at page 56 of the estimates. It indicates that last year the total appropriation for the department was $37,591,865, whereas for this year it is $37,180,066, which would indicate superficially a decrease of $411,799. However, I think the committee should be told the actual expenditure by the department during the fiscal year 1951-52. I presume the actual expenditure is now known and available.


Robert Henry Winters: We have not yet the complete figures from the treasury audit, but should have them shortly. I shall be glad to communicate them to the hon. member as soon as they are received.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can the minister not tell us now the total expenditures and the total commitments at the last known date? It has always been possible to arrive at reasonably close calculations of expenditures of a previous year. If it is not actually known, then it is simply a matter of adding the total known expenditures and the estimated obligations for the balance of the fiscal year.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member will notice that in the breakdown shown at page 432 estimates of actual expenditures are shown against .the vote. At the present time we do not have the consolidation, but we should have it within the next 10 days or two weeks. If when we are considering supplementary estimates the hon. member wishes to have that information, I believe I could provide it for him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Surely some information is now available. These estimates were compiled some time ago, and they indicated the known expenditures at the date of compilation plus the estimate of the amount required to meet expenditures to the end of the fiscal year. As months have passed in the interval, I presume the amount of known expenditures has increased, while the amount of estimated obligations to the end of the fiscal year would have decreased accordingly. Surely a figure is available now. When we reach the first item in a department we should know the true position, and have a true comparison of proposed expenditures. For example, we are
2732	HOUSE OF
Supply-Resources and Development asked to vote for this department the sum of $37,180,066. The amount set out here would appear to be a slight reduction when compared with last year's figure. I am satisfied, however, that if we have before us the figures showing actual expenditures last year the amount sought by way of appropriation this year will represent a considerable increase.


Robert Henry Winters: In the first place, I think if we are going to be fair in our approach to the problem we should compare actual expenditures with actual expenditures, and not compare actual expenditures for 1951-52 with estimates for 1952-53; and we are not in a position to provide the hon. member with actual expenditures for 1952-53 until the amount will have been spent. As I said before, the treasury audit has not yet been completed; and while I could compile from estimated figures the approximate total the hon. member wishes to have, I could not give it to him on the basis of any audited figures because the treasury audit has not yet been completed.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I see that in every item there are allowances ranging from $25,000 to $68,000 for increases in pay. Does the minister expect to give increases in pay to the civil service?


Robert Henry Winters: Those are the last increases and allowances effective from December 1.


Clarence Gillis: I know all the housing items are going to stand over until the matter has been discussed in the committee. Will the committee now studying housing also take into consideration the matter of restoring the regulations permitting supplementary loans? I would focus the minister's attention upon this matter because, in the general shuffle of considering housing, it might be lost.


Robert Henry Winters: With all due deference to the hon. member I feel I must rise to a point of order. This afternoon the items in question were referred to the committee on banking and commerce, and are therefore not before us at the moment.


Clarence Gillis: I said I knew that had been done. But does the minister consider the question I am asking him is part of the general housing problem to be discussed before that committee?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, that may be discussed before the committee.


Clarence Gillis: I am just reminding the minister about it, because I shall be making some further inquiries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

National parks branch-
375. Branch administration, $23,545.
George Randolph Pearkes: In the report of the Massey commission attention is called to the fact that Canada has no adequate botanical gardens. It goes on to say that in this deficiency Canada is unique among the advanced countries of the world. I have a list prepared which sets out where some of the principal botanical gardens are located, and which supports this statement of the Massey commission. The first one on record is at Pisa in Italy, which was established in 1534. That was followed quickly by others in Oxford, England, in 1621; Chelsea, in 1673; Paris, France, in- 1635, and so on. The result is that practically all the principal countries of the world have botanical gardens. The Massey report goes on to say at page 325:
A general collection or collections of all types of plants is needed not only for the pleasure and instruction of citizens but for scientific purposes.
Then it goes on to say that from the economic point of view it is not likely there could be one botanical garden established in Canada which would serve all purposes, because of our varying climatic conditions. Actually there is a small botanical garden at the present time in Montreal, and there is what is known as the royal botanical garden in Hamilton. I know the historical society of Victoria made certain definite recommendations to the Massey commission suggesting that a most suitable place west of the Rocky mountains would be the southern end of Vancouver island, where we have climatic conditions which are unequalled the world over for the growing of a large variety of flowers, bushes and trees.
Not only from the point of view of pleasure but from the point of view of the development and application of the science dealing with shrubs and plants to the industries of Canada, the government would certainly be warranted in following the recommendation made by the Massey commission and establishing these botanical gardens as soon as possible. Has any consideration been given either to the establishment of one central botanical garden, which is not recommended in this report, or to granting assistance to existing or projected botanical gardens throughout Canada? I should like to inform the minister that consideration is being given by a number of horticulturists on the southern portion of Vancouver island to the establishment there of a botanical garden. They hope the government and the minister will see their way clear

to assist in the establishment of that garden. Can the minister say whether any progress has been made along these lines?


Robert Henry Winters: I thank the hon. member for raising this very important subject. I too have been reading the report of the Massey commission, and I see that on page 326 its first recommendation is as follows:
That there be established in the Ottawa area a national botanical garden under the Department of Agriculture: and that the federal government assist in the establishment or support of other botanical gardens in certain of the various climatic regions of Canada.
Therefore if the government follows the report of the Massey commission this will be something to be dealt with by the Minister of Agriculture. The Prime Minister indicated yesterday that step by step the government does intend to implement the various recommendations of the Massey commission. I can only say to the committee now that I am very glad to have these views expressed by the hon. member, and I assure him that they will be borne in mind.


Frank Exton Lennard: If and when the government do consider the support of botanical gardens, I would urge them not to overlook the royal botanical gardens which have been established in the Hamilton area in connection with McMaster university. I would also suggest that I do not think the Department of Agriculture is the one to deal with this very important matter.


Mrs. Fairclough:: I should like to add a word to what the hon. member for Wentworth has said because this is a matter with which I have had considerable experience, inasmuch as it comes under the jurisdiction of the parks board of the city of Hamilton. This particular botanical garden is not only a plant life but also a wildlife preserve. Not only does it provide for the production and development of various types of animal and plant life but, as the hon. member for Wentworth has said, it has been the means by which McMaster university has carried on much of its scientific research in these fields. I know that the work of the garden has been seriously hampered for many years through lack of funds. Every year when the parks board estimates come up for review by the city of Hamilton there is a great plea for additional funds to carry on the work of the royal botanical garden, and of course there is nothing but the one mill provided under provincial law for the carrying on of all the work of the parks board of which the royal botanical garden is but a small part.
Like the hon. member for Wentworth, I believe this is not a matter for the Department of Agriculture because of the various
Supply-Resources and Development activities carried on in the royal botanical garden, and I am quite sure that if it is assigned to that department the operation will not be carried out as efficiently as it should be.


An hon. Member:: You should bring in
fisheries too.


Robert Henry Winters: One of the controllers of Hamilton is in town, and I understand that he intends to speak to me tomorrow about this very important matter. While I am on my feet, and since so many of my colleagues are headed for Halifax for what I am sure will be a very pleasant week end, I should like to draw the attention of the committee to the very fine Halifax botanical gardens which are maintained by the city. They are known as the public gardens and I am sure our colleagues will enjoy them during the week end.


Frank Exton Lennard: With respect to the royal botanical garden at Hamilton, there is marine life in that garden which certainly would not come under the Minister of Agriculture.


Robert Henry Winters: I simply said if he did it he would do it well.


William Scottie Bryce: I should like to ask the minister if he has had any consultation with the provincial governments concerning the depredations committed by wildlife located in the national parks. The provincial government does not have anything to do with it. It is nice to have elk, deer and so on, but if they are going to come out of the parks during the wintertime and eat the farmers' crops something should be done about it. I know that over fifty people had their crops destroyed to the extent of 25, 50 or even 100 acres by these animals from the park. Has the farmer any right to sue? He cannot shoot these animals because then he is up against the mounted police. They are on guard to see that nobody shoots them. I think something should be done about it because what is the good of growing a crop merely to feed it to animals you look at in the park?


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I suggest that perhaps the answer to this question might more properly be given on item 379?


William Scottie Bryce: I thought I would ask the minister now when he was in good humour.


Robert Henry Winters: I am always in good humour.


Louis-René Beaudoin: He will probably still be in good humour on item 379, and the chairman too.


Mr. Dinsdale:: There are two matters under this item that interest me. The first has to do with the disappearance of an item from the estimates this year. I spoke on this matter on March 17 last, so the facts are before

Supply-Resources and Development members of the house. I refer to the grant of $15,000 that was made available to the international peace garden on the Manitoba-North Dakota boundary. My reason for raising this inquiry tonight is to see if I can discover the present status of the international peace garden. I think the minister is well aware of the facts. Various representations have been made, and they are endeavouring to cope with the emergency that has resulted from the withdrawal of support for the current year.
As I pointed out on March 17 the garden, which has been under way since 1932, had reached a crucial point in its development. In a matter of two or three years it would have been completed successfully provided this support had been maintained. I further pointed out that it had great potentialities, and as a matter of fact it has already demonstrated that it is a significant tourist attraction. There is a paved road now through the garden and a new customs building is to be established. The money is provided in the estimates for the current year. With the completion of the highway and the enlargement of the customs facilities tourist traffic is going to increase tremendously because of the significance of the international peace garden. It is beginning to be recognized as an international shrine and has tremendous appeal to United States tourists. I know there are other hon. members who are interested in the fate of the peace garden grant and who have made representations along these lines. That is the first item I wish to bring to the minister's attention.
The second point is the increase in the schedule of camping fees in the national parks. This increase has been right across the board. As a result of a question I asked I have discovered that in most cases the increase in camping fees has been 100 per cent. I should like to know whether this increase is due to greater costs and the prevailing high prices, and whether the parks were able to pay their way under the old schedule. In other words I am wondering whether it was financially necessary to increase these national parks camping fees.
As I understand it, the national parks were established originally in the early thirties and designated as the people's playgrounds. There is a feeling that the parks are being commercialized, and this has been dealt with editorially by such famous columnists as Jack Scott. As an example, some of the citizens of Brandon who use the facilities of the Manitoba national park at Clear lake have been in the habit of establishing their tent houses in the tourist camp in May in order to hold the site. They pay the weekly rental

through the entire season to the end of September, which represents an investment of some $40. This is considerably higher than the taxes paid by the more prosperous citizens who are able to build cottages in the park. I should like to know whether this increase has been necessitated by losses in the operation of the parks or whether it is an attempt to supplement income for improvements and so forth.
I understand a charge of $1 is made for commercial vehicles travelling through the parks and I should like to know whether that requirement could be met on the basis of an annual licence.


Mr. Fulford:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about the St. Lawrence national park. The hon. member for Brandon referred to the international peace garden, and I should like to mention that for many years there has been a movement in Ontario, the county of Leeds especially and at the section crossed by the Thousand islands bridge, to establish a national peace park. At times this movement has had considerable impetus; at other times it seems to drag, and we do not hear much about it.
As the committee are probably aware, the Thousand islands bridge was opened in August, 1938. It crosses one of the most beautiful sections of the Thousand islands in the St. Lawrence river. The Canadian span has piers in no less than two of the St. Lawrence national parks. As the bridge ends on Hill island it crosses a road about three-quarters of a mile long to the Canadian customs. There is then one of the shortest international bridges in the world, a bridge less than sixty feet in length which crosses the international border. The route then passes on to beautiful Wellesley island in the state of New York. The bridge was opened by the late President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and our late Prime Minister, Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. On that historical occasion Mr. Roosevelt made his famous statement about the waters of the St. Lawrence. He said that while these had always divided the two countries he hoped that in the near future they would serve as a closer bond between the two countries. He was referring to the St. Lawrence seaway and power development.
Not only is this Thousand islands section of the St. Lawrence river one of the most beautiful on the continent, it is very important historically. I for one would hate to see that splendid idea of creating an international peace park at this place dropped. My purpose in rising tonight is to remind the minister and the committee that this is a project which is too important to be forgotten. It

concerns sections of Canada and the United States which have great historical interest.
I understand that at one time our national parks branch had prepared elaborate and beautiful plans for this park. I understand also that at one time the state of New York was co-operating closely in the project. Then the war came along and the plans were forgotten. They were revived again after the war, but of late little has been heard of this scheme on either side of the border. I might say that originally the plans called for an international golf course, nine holes to be in Canada and nine holes in the United States, with two water holes where you would drive back and forth across the international boundary, or you would if you were lucky. This matter is of such importance that I want to bring it before the committee for the consideration of the minister and to have it on the records that this great project be not forgotten.
It has been my custom in recent years to mention our St. Lawrence national parks and what they have meant to the people, and at the same time to urge the department to set up similar parks along the Rideau river. These are not large parks like Jasper or Cape Breton island; they are small parks which can be enjoyed by the general public. They have pavilions, bathing facilities, docks and stoves, and I know of no other place where the public enjoy themselves more.
I have felt for years that parks similar to the popular ones on the St. Lawrence should be established in the Rideau district. If the hon. member for Lanark were here I know he would support me, because I have spoken to him about it. Part of the Rideau lakes are in his riding, part in my riding and part in the riding of the hon. member for Frontenac. Actually there are natural facilities, the property of the dominion government, which could be easily converted into national parks similar to those on the St. Lawrence. There are various places in the county of Leeds, although actually they are used more by the people of Lanark, that could be made into national parks. There are other equally admirable sites which could be magnificent parks at Rideau Ferry, another one at The Narrows; another one at Foster Lock; another one at Chaffey's Locks, and so on all the way from Smiths Falls to Kingston. I urge the minister that a survey be made with the idea of establishing these parks along this great and beautiful waterway which connects the capital of Canada with the city of Kingston.
This section of the country is also of great historical importance, but most important of all it would appear to be an ideal spot to which to bring families to enjoy to the utmost 55704-173
Supply-Resources and Development the magnificent scenery which is found in that part of the province. It would be a great boon to the people living in the city of Ottawa. I understand there are excursions which run from Ottawa to the Rideau lakes by bus, and from Smiths Falls through part of the waterway by motorboat. If it were possible to have these national parks established around the right of way, it would make another section of Canada that would afford great pleasure to the public. Not only would the people from this immediate district go there, but also people from eastern Ontario and part of the province of Quebec. I go further and say that it would be a great attraction to tourists from the United States.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Chairman, the Rideau has been mentioned so I think the Trent should be mentioned also. In the Trent system we have 250 miles of lakes and rivers. There are many beautiful spots along the Trent where government lands have, in some cases, been beautified by the people of the area so the public can enjoy the scenery of the Trent. We have clear running water in Trent right from Georgian bay down into lake Couchi-ching, into Pigeon lake, Clear lake, Stony lake, into lake Katchiwanooka, into Rice lake, and eventually down into the bay of Quinte, out through the Murray canal into lake Ontario, or going the other way along through Adolphus strait to Kingston. This is the most beautiful section of scenery in the whole country.


George Taylor Fulford: One of the most beautiful.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The most beautiful. I feel quite sure that if the Rideau is ever considered, then the Trent must be considered along with it. I may say that engineers from Pakistan have been through the district studying navigation, the dams and locks, in order to instal a navigation system in that country. They did see the Rideau, but because it was old-fashioned they turned to the Trent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Leeds, particularly when he was making a case for financial assistance to make possible an international peace garden down in the Thousand islands area. The project, as he outlined it, did seem most commendable. I should like to point out, in support of the hon. member for Brandon who has also mentioned the matter tonight, that before one tries to persuade the government to spend money on something that has not yet been started, perhaps we should get together and try to persuade the government not to discontinue a grant we have had for a number of years for the international peace garden on the southern boundary of Manitoba, south of the city of Brandon.
2736	HOUSE OF
Supply-Resources and Development
To me it is a piece of irony, almost an affront, that in the estimates, the section with which we are now dealing, there should be this wording, "Appropriation not required for 1952-53, $15,000." When one turns over to page 440 to ascertain what it is for which the appropriation is not required, one finds it is a grant in aid of the development of the international peace garden in Manitoba. I know, Mr. Chairman, that is simply the technical language that is employed in the book of estimates to indicate that the estimate has been dropped. But I submit that the language is completely in error. The appropriation is required. We from Manitoba regret that the minister and the government have dropped it, despite all the representations that have been made, I believe by every member of parliament for Manitoba as well as by many organizations in our province that are interested in this project.
I hope that tonight the minister, when he heard an appeal for an international peace park on the St. Lawrence, had a feeling that his sins were catching up with him, and decided he had better go back to the treasury board and request the re-institution of this $15,000 grant for the international peace garden in Manitoba.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: I should like to say a word with respect to this international peace garden. It is not only south of Brandon; it is also south of Boissevain which is in the riding I have the honour to represent. Like the other members from Manitoba, I have taken this matter up on several occasions, as well as having made a speech on it earlier in this session. Certainly, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the language in the estimates is most inappropriate. I am personally acquainted with a number of the officials of the international peace garden, and I can assure you they are having great difficulty in raising money to carry on the development in that area. We are very much disappointed that the minister has not seen his way clear to continuing this Worth-while grant. It was badly needed, not only for maintenance but for the development of what I think is one of the most worthy projects in this dominion.
The United States government have been making a fairly handsome grant towards the operation of this international peace garden, which is on the international boundary, just about half way across this country, approximately in the centre of North America. It is a very fine situation. I hope that the min-


ister will see fit to re-enact this grant which is so badly needed for this fine project.


William Scottie Bryce: I have just one question. I want to endorse what my Manitoba colleagues have said in connection with the peace garden. What I should like to ask the minister in connection with these parks is this. Has there been an extension of electricity into two or three more streets? Previously I drew the attention of the minister to the fact that they are using gasoline lamps and coal oil lamps there, and that this is a dangerous practice. You have electricity there. You could avoid a tremendous fire by extending electricity to a few more streets in order to accommodate the camps that are set up there.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, would you call it eleven o'clock? I wish to speak on the same subject.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Could we not dispose of these items with regard to parks?


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre wishes to speak on the matter, and we should like to have a reply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister could dispose of the matter by putting in $15,000.


Robert Henry Winters: If the members of the committee wish me to do so, I will answer some of these questions now.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


Robert Henry Winters: If hon. members wish to call it eleven o'clock, that is all right.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have something to say on the same subject.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will consider the estimates of the Department of Defence Production and the remaining items in the Department of Trade and Commerce. Then we will try to complete the estimates of the Department of Resources and Development. Then if time permits, and if it is agreeable to hon. members, we will take up the estimates of the Department of Public Works.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is perfectly agreeable.


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

Supply
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
175.	Administration of justice-miscellaneous expenditure, including expenses of litigated matters, $21,200.
Supreme Court of Canada-
176.	Administration, $165,216.
Exchequer Court of Canada-
177.	Administration, $98,177.
Yukon Territorial Court-
178.	Administration, $12,590.
Other courts-
179.	Payments of gratuities to the widows or other dependents of judges who die while in office, $15,000.
180.	Combines investigation branch, $261,055.
181.	Bankruptcy Act administration, $42,219. General-
182.	To provide for the revision, classification and consolidation of the public general statutes of Canada. $172,600.
183.	To provide for the revision of the criminal code, including payment of $25,000, notwithstanding section 37 of the Judges Act, 1946, as amended, of honoraria for services rendered during the years
1949, 1950 and 1951, to the following commissioners of the criminal code revision commission: Chief Justice William M. Martin, Regina, Sask., Honourable Mr. Justice Fernand Choquette, Quebec City, P.Q., His Honour Judge Robert Forsyth, Toronto, Ont., H. J. Wilson, Q.C., Edmonton, Alta., Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C., Toronto, Ont., $35,500.
B-Penitentiaries-
Office of the commissioner of penitentiaries-
184.	Administration of the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries, including $35,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by the governor in council, $338,771.
185.	Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries, including supplies and services relating thereto; administration, operation, repair and upkeep of buildings, works and equipment; maintenance, discharge and transfer of inmates; compensation to discharged inmates permanently disabled while in penitentiaries, $7,963,398.
186.	Construction, improvements and new equipment, including provision for the establishment and construction of a new institution in the province of Quebec for the confinement and reformation of federal prisoners, $1,383,474.

[Stage Direction]
374. Departmental administration, $403,389.
55704-173J
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 30, 1952