1954-06-03

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern) presented the second report of the special committee on veterans affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: I am told that it is not the intention to move concurrence in this report, which is a rather lengthy one. Shall the deputy clerk dispense with the reading of the report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, yesterday a question of mine dealing with aerial cameras was answered. The second part of the question reads as follows:
How many aerial cameras were contracted for during the period from January 1, to April 30. 1954, and what was the total value?
The answer given was "nil". In the Financial Post of April 24, 1954 appears a list of contracts awarded by the Department of Defence Production for the first half of March. In that list there appears over $1,500,000 worth of aerial camera contracts awarded to Ernst Leitz (Canada) Limited, Midland. It is very evident that either the officers of the department do not know what they are buying or the answer given to me is misleading. I should like this question to be put back on the order paper.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: If I may give the explanation, either the hon. member or the Financial Post is wrong about the description of the camera contracts placed with Ernst Leitz (Canada) Limited. They are what are known as gun cameras. They operate from the ground or from the air but they are not known as aerial cameras. We go by the definition of the article that we believe to be correct.
LLater:]


Frank Exton Lennard: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether or not the gun cameras mentioned are the gun cameras on planes for aerial photography and so on?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That may be so;
I am not an expert on gun cameras. If my hon. friend would phrase his question so as to ask how many cameras were ordered and ask us to specify the types, we will be glad to give him the information.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Pallelt:: 1.	How many acres are there in what is known as the Long Branch rifle range in the township of Toronto?
2.	What buildings, if any, are situated on the ranges?
3.	What percentage of the area of land is in fact used for military purposes?
4.	Did any active army personnel use the ranges last year?
5.	How many reserve army personnel used the ranges during 1953?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	303 acres of land.
2.	A workshop, a magazine, a hose reel shed, a range warden's house, a general mess hall, seven range buildings owned by individual units of the Toronto garrison, two wartime buildings used as emergency married quarters by the army and a number of other wartime buildings used by the city of Toronto as emergency shelters.
3.	Approximately 90 per cent. The remainder is occupied by the emergency married quarters and emergency shelter buildings.
4.	Yes.
5.	Twenty eight different reserve force units used the range during 1953. In addition twenty-five military rifle associations and personnel of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Ontario provincial police and Royal Canadian Army Cadets also frequently used the facilities of the range. Details of numbers of individuals using these ranges are not available.



VETERANS LAND ACT


Mrs. Fairclough:: 1.	How many veteran small holding establishments are there in Canada, under the Veterans' Land Act, established on parcels of land in excess of one-half acre?
2.	What is the total acreage of the said establishments?
3.	How many of the total acres of the said establishments were under cultivation and producing
crops in 1953?
83276-344J

Questions


Mr. Bennett:: 1, 2 and 3. Departmental records are not maintained on the basis of the questions asked. However, veterans have been established as small holders under the Veterans Land Act as follows: Under 1 acre, 8,793; including 1 acre up to 2 acres, 4,344; including 2 acres and up to 5 acres, 9,347; including 5 acres up to 25 acres, 3,663; including 25 acres and up, 1,594.
The average size of a small holding is 6.2 acres.
No record of number of acres developed is maintained, but reports on a sample of about half the small holdings show that on nearly 55 per cent of them summer vegetables and fruit are grown and an income sufficient to meet V.L.A. payments is made from the land; while good progress towards similar production is being made on another 35 per cent of holdings.



ISRAEL HALPERIN

Frank Exton Lennard: Is the Dr. Israel Halperin who was awarded a fellowship by the Royal Society of Canada, of $4,000, payable out of Canadian government funds, the same Israel Halperin who was charged during the communist spy trials of 1946?


Mr. Pinard:: Yes. Dr. Halperin was acquitted by the court of the charges against him.
The fellowship in question was one of a number awarded annually by the Royal Society of Canada from blocked funds made available to the government of Canada by certain foreign governments in settlement of debts. Portions of these blocked funds have been set aside for scholarships and fellowships, by agreement with the governments concerned. The selection of scholars and fellows is made by and on the sole responsibility of the Royal Society of Canada, which is of course independent of the government.



ROSEHALL NURSERIES LIMITED

Mr. McWilliam:: 1.	Did Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have any contracts with Rose-hall Nurseries Limited, of Brantford, Ontario, prior to June 27, 1949?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	Where were the contracts performed?
4.	What amount of money was involved?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Ten.
3.	Amherst, Arnprior, New Glasgow, Orillia, Ottawa, Stellarton (2 projects), Trenton, N.S., Halifax, Renfrew.
4.	$164,494.22.



D-DAY TENTH ANNIVERSARY    FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO VETERANS VISITING NORMANDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. What steps is the government taking to recognize the tenth anniversary of D-day next Sunday?
Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs as such and the department as such have not undertaken any steps. It is not customary for the department to undertake steps to commemorate any particular event. This is not the function of the Department of Veterans Affairs.


George Harris Hees: May I ask the Secretary of State what steps the government is taking to recognize this very important day?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: So far as I am aware, sir, none.


George Harris Hees: I should like to ask another question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, of which I have given him notice. What financial assistance, if any, is the government willing to give to the 150 ex-service personnel who are revisiting Normandy on D-day to honour their comrades who died in that campaign?


Mr. Lapointe:: As in the past, the Department of Veterans Affairs is not giving any financial assistance in such circumstances. Similar pilgrimages have taken place in the past, and they have always been done on a private basis and have been sponsored by veterans organizations or regimental organizations. The 150 veterans to whom my hon. friend has referred are only a part of the
9,000	or 10,000 Canadians who took part in the Normandy invasion on D-day, and I think my hon. friend will agree that it would be quite impossible for the Department of Veterans Affairs to give financial assistance to every one of those veterans who wished to return on the occasion of the anniversary of the invasion of Normandy. Similarly it would be impossible to give financial assistance to every veteran who wished to visit battlefields on which he has served in the past.



NUMBER OF C.B.C. COMMENTATORS TO COVER ANNIVERSARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of

National Revenue. How many C.B.C. commentators are being sent to Europe to cover the tenth anniversary of D-day?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: I have not that information, but I can get it.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources? About a week ago I asked a question concerning the destruction of fish in Banff national park. Is the minister now prepared to give an answer to that question to which I made reference again yesterday?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: We have
received a preliminary report from the field, and there are certain aspects of the situation which must still be investigated. I might say, however, that the relatively small number of fish which were destroyed as a result of their passage through the power plant turbines were not game fish and their loss will have no effect on sport fishing in the park.
However, our field officers are presently examining various solutions with the company officials. If any practical means is found of preventing the recurrence of fish losses at the plant, the hon. member may rest assured that we will have the necessary corrective measures carried out.



WATER POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I should like to make a correction, Mr. Speaker, in an answer I gave yesterday to a question by the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron), having to do with the alleged pollution of lake Ontario waters by oil. I indicated that a reference made to the international joint commission had been extended to cover pollution of certain of the great lakes, including lake Ontario. I find I was in error. The reference to the international joint commission as it now stands covers only certain connecting waters of the great lakes, that is to say St. Mary river from lake Superior to lake Huron, the St. Clair river, lake St. Clair, and Detroit river between lakes Huron and Erie, and the Niagara river between lakes Erie and Ontario.
Inquiries of the Ministry IRRIGATION



SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER PROJECT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in regard to the South Saskatchewan dam. In view of the offer of the Saskatchewan government to assume $73 million of the $135 million cost in connection therewith, what further elements have to be considered by the federal government before a decision is made to proceed?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): The principal element to be considered is whether or not the expenditure of a great many millions of dollars by the nation would be in the national interest.


John George Diefenbaker: Who is making that determination? Is an investigation taking place at the present time?


Mr. St. Laurent:: There have been investigations and I have considered the reports of all those investigations. I have not yet come to the conclusion that I can take the responsibility of recommending this project to parliament, as an undertaking of value to the nation equivalent to its cost to the nation, and I am not going to make any such recommendation until, in my own mind and conscience, I feel it is something that I can honestly do.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: In reference to the same matter, I should like to point out that the $73 million has nothing whatever to do with what the government is considering. The government has been considering the possibility of assisting with the dam. The $73 million has to do with matters which the province would do, no matter who built the dam. If it were there the province undertook to put in all of the plant that is required below for the development of power. They undertook also to take care of all the expenses in connection with the matter of irrigation. It has never been considered that this government would be paying part of that. That is, the $73 million is a matter which the province probably will undertake if the dam is put there.
I should like to say at the same time, as the one who has been perhaps proposing this more ardently than anyone else, that the settlement of the question will not be helped at all by political questions and political speeches put forward in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Fleming:: A Daniel come to judgment.


James Garfield Gardiner: If those who make speeches in the house-


Mr. Knowles:: What is this?


James Garfield Gardiner: -will recall what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has just said, and all he did say in Regina, that the question at issue is as to whether the completion of this project would be in the interests of Canada as a whole, then speeches along that line would be most helpful. But speeches here to the effect that I said something one time or another are not going to be very helpful,-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: -especially when what they say I said I never did say.


Mr. Harkness:: You would like to forget what you said.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Minister of Agriculture agree with the editorials the other day in the Star-Phoenix and the Regina Leader-Post that excuses are no longer available, that speeches are no longer effective; what the people out there want is action.


James Garfield Gardiner: They have had more action out of me than anyone else they have sent down here, including the hon. member for Prince Albert.


John George Diefenbaker: Action without results.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: May I ask the minister a supplementary question? Is it not a fact this recent offer by the Saskatchewan government to participate to this extent is the result of negotiations the minister himself has conducted with the Saskatchewan government, and does the minister think it would be in the national interest to complete this dam?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the discussions which have taken place up to the present time, since this question was discussed a year and a half ago, have been discussions to remove certain things which we indicated would have to be cleared before we could discuss the main question at all. And what was stated in the letter which came forward -and there is no reason why it should be laid on the table, because it has been published in full in the press-is that three of the difficulties raised by this government on April 24, 1953 as standing in the way of considering the main question, one being water rights, and another being the question as to what it was going to cost, and another being whether or not the provincial government was prepared to do these things which

make up the $73 million, and do them completely-these three have been cleared by the province and this government by discussion. The one other which is not yet decided is as to the amount that would have to be paid by the province in order to remove any subsidy on account of power, if the project were being considered.
That is the only question which was under discussion at the conference we had on Saturday, April 17. It is suggested by the province that the offer made in this letter of April 28 would provide for that, too. But we, here, are not prepared to accept what was stated as really providing for the removal of that condition. When agreement is reached that all four obstacles are removed the real question of whether we are going to proceed or not will be open for discussion and consideration.


Major James William Coldwell: Do you consider this
expenditure is in the national interest?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Answer.



INQUIRY AS TO EXPORT TO RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. This is really a request for clarification. In view of two different replies which have been received, one in a return in my name, and the other given yesterday to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) will the minister say, with regard to tenders called for the sale of canned pork, whether it was stipulated that these sales should be made outside Canada only, or outside the North American continent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which was which, but I will be very glad to consult our records and answer tomorrow.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



DEPRATMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
730. To provide for special expenditure in connection with a commission under the Inquiries Act to inquire into the working of the Patent Act, the Copyright Act, the Industrial Designs Act and other related legislation, $25,000.
Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, this item asks for the expenditure of $25,000 to provide for the appointment of a commission under the Inquiries Act to inquire into the working

of the Patent Act, the Copyright Act, the Industrial Designs Act and other related legislation.
The Secretary of State told us on another occasion, in very general terms, of his intentions to appoint Mr. Justice Ilsley as commissioner. I think it would be of interest to hon. members if he were to expand upon what he said on the earlier occasion. It would be helpful if he would tell us in what respect the acts have been found to be inadequate, and the nature and scope of the inquiry which is proposed to be undertaken by the commissioner.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, when I became Secretary of State there had been under consideration for some time a number of amendments to the Patent Act, one of which was actually introduced at the time I made the announcement in February with respect to the setting up of this commission.
It seemed to me, from such information as I was able to get on the subject-one which I admit, quite frankly, is new to me and with which I am not familiar-that some of these amendments were relatively far-reaching in their scope, and that there also appeared to be some need to consider some of the other procedures.
The matter had been under consideration for some time. After discussion with some of my colleagues, and such informal advice as I was able to get on the subject, it seemed to me it was sufficiently important to warrant an inquiry to find out what would really be the appropriate recasting of this patent legislation, which is very important from the point of view of the future industrial development of this country.
It was also represented to me by officials of the department that the Copyright Act was in considerable need, not merely of amendment but of complete overhaul; that it had not been revised for a good many years, and that many changes in the handling of copyright had developed in the interval. It was pointed out that the act really should be completely overhauled, as is customary in respect of all these pieces of legislation from time to time.
It was also drawn to my attention that the industrial designs act was really quite out of date, and that there had been tremendous development in industrial designs in recent years. Through the national gallery, with the assistance of the Department of Trade and Commerce, an attempt has been made to stimulate and promote industrial design in Canada, instead of relying, as we have in the past, upon work done in the United States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
Supply-Secretary of State
I have no doubt some hon. members have attended the exhibitions which have been held under the aegis of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in the old Laurentian club building in the last two years where, after competitions, the best designs have been selected. A lot of good work has been done here in the field of industrial design, and it is quite obvious that the legislation does need to be considered again, and that it is, in many respects which I will not attempt to enumerate because, quite frankly, I am not competent to do so, inadequate at the moment. That is precisely one of the reasons why it seems to me we should have some competent people to take a real look at these things. I do not think that most of us in the House of Commons would feel that we have sufficient detailed knowledge of these matters to consider new legislation without advice. It would be much better to have a report from really competent people who would hear interested parties and would be able to consider what the public interest really is.
Then, the Trade Marks Act was pretty thoroughly revised at the last session of the last parliament, and is to come into operation on July 1. It is not intended that this proposed commission of inquiry should give detailed consideration to that act. It would be prepared to hear recommendations, if the terms of reference we have in mind are adopted, and incidentally to give consideration to any representations which might be made as to improvements which might be made in that legislation as well. But there is no thought in that case of attempting to go over the whole of the generally excellent work done quite recently by parliament after a great deal of work by very competent people in the field. I do not think I can put in much briefer compass the kind of considerations the government had in mind than I did on February 11 last at page 1995 of Hansard where I said:
... it is the intention of the government within the next few months to establish a public inquiry-under the Inquiries Act into the working of the Patent Act, the Copyright Act, the industrial designs act and other related legislation.
Without attempting to give any specific terms of reference, I indicated that the general scope of the inquiry was to ensure:
. . . that adequate stimulus is being given to inventive and creative talent in Canada; to see that at the same time the public interest is being protected from undue exploitation of property in inventions and ideas.
It is my confident hope that a commission presided over by Chief Justice Ilsley will keep in mind these two considerations: The consideration that we do want to give adequate encouragement to invention and to

Supply-Secretary of State creativeness in Canada, and at the same time we do not want to create the kind of restrictions and monopolistic practices which will prevent the public from getting a proper benefit from such creativeness and inventiveness. That is about all that I can really usefully say at this stage.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, this item presents the possibility of one of the most useful inquiries that could be held. Having regard to the fact that we have as yet no indication of the terms of reference, I feel it is appropriate to make certain comments on the assumption that the terms of reference have not yet been settled. Am I correct in that assumption?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That assumption is quite correct. As a matter of fact it will be recalled, sir, that at the time I had that bill before the house I asked for comments, and the hon. member for Kamloops said there had not been any notice given of this and hon. members would naturally want to think about it. I thought that was a most reasonable view to take. And he said that surely the matter could wait until these estimates came up. I gave an undertaking at that time that the terms of reference would not be settled finally until an opportunity had been given for any hon. member who wished to do so to give his views, and that the government would take into consideration the views that were expressed in drawing up the reference. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that no final decision has been made, and that the government will welcome any constructive suggestions from any quarter of the house in drawing up the terms of reference.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I was merely asking for information and not in any way challenging the position of the minister in presenting this item for the approval of the committee. I simply wished to be clear that even if there were a draft form of reference at the moment, I was directing remarks with the knowledge of that fact. I do therefore propose to make certain observations in regard to this subject, because the terms of reference under which this inquiry is conducted will, in a very large measure, indicate the pattern in respect of which the government is seeking information.
We have seen immense strides in this country within the past few years. One of the advantages of some accumulation of years is that it does make it possible to review within one's own memory the almost unbelievable changes that have taken place in this country in the past half century. From a country that was largely agricultural, and boasted of the fact that it was, we have


become a country that is predominantly industrial in the actual physical production, while at the same time recognizing that agriculture is still the basic industry of this country. This immense change has been based largely upon research, combined with the education received by young Canadians in our public and high schools and in our universities, particularly in the technical branches of those universities.
Within the years that have passed the names of many Canadians have become household words all over the world. That is not confined to industrial research. We all remember the name of Saunders and his effect on agricultural production. We all remember the name of Banting, and millions of people over the world remember it from day to day with a tremendous sense of personal indebtedness. We all know the name of Best and his magnificent contribution to the preservation of blood plasma as well as his participation in the development of insulin. Within recent years we also have seen some remarkable developments in the province of Quebec, under the council that has been established there to encourage new types of ceramic and metal production. There are a number of names that I could mention now that are becoming well known far outside of Canada as a result of that planned activity. I could go on and mention many others in the aircraft industry and in other types of industry whose inventions and names are well known.
Having said all that, I think it is important for us to realize that a great part of our expansion has been the direct result of the impact on our lives of the demands of other nations through two world wars. God forbid that anyone should suggest that wars in themselves have been beneficial in their effect. Certainly that is not my suggestion. Nevertheless, this is the process of history. Other countries have had the same experience in other times. Nations which had exhausted their basic resources, that had a highly-developed skill accumulated throughout long years, found it necessary to look to other lands for those raw materials. In that process those other lands have advanced and in turn have learned how to use the raw material.
In the first world war we suddenly found that we could produce new types of heavy equipment. Our production of guns, of munitions of war and of many of the medical supplies opened new fields of industrial development in this country which after the war were turned to the advantage of our people in employment and in prosperity. Having learned something of our resources through necessity, other countries then turned more

and more to Canada after world war I. They not only looked upon us as the source of raw materials but they also brought their industrial plants here and started production here because of cheap power, because of the availability of resources, and because of the fact that we have very satisfactory water routes through which to carry our production to the markets of the world. In addition to that was the fact that being as close as we are to the coal producing areas of the United States we were able to find the industrial fuel in the central parts of the country as well as in the maritimes and in Alberta. Perhaps there may be some measure of regret in connection with that in the maritimes and in Alberta because undoubtedly it is limiting the employment of coal in the central part of Canada because of the greater availability of anthracite and bituminous coal from the mines of the United States which are fairly close to us.
Simply mentioning that indicates the kind of challenge that is presented to us. I am convinced that one of the ways in which to use our great coal resources in this country, and we sometimes forget that today we have the largest known undeveloped coal resources in the world, is to find new processes by which coal can be used for other things than fuel, and also for use as fuel in a liquid form as has been done in other countries.
I recall on different occasions seeing exhibitions in Germany and Czechoslovakia of the really fantastic products made from coal. I recall one exhibit at the world fair in Paris in 1937 which was wholly devoted to products produced from coal. I recall that you could get everything from your hat to your shoes made from coal, and I might add that this was a German exhibit.
Far from those things being ersatz products in the term of contempt in which that word- was sometimes used, those products were enduring and had the quality particularly of holding dyes and things of that kind which made many of them more enduring in some cases than other products made with more conventional material. We even found sweetening material being used instead of sugar and that material came from coal.
All these things are merely a hint of the possibilities that exist in the development of our coal resources by applied research. It may be well for us to recall that at the time Britain was regularly winning the Schneider trophy before the war with the fastest piston engine airplanes, the engines were powered by liquid fuel made from coal.
There is a challenge to us to seek new methods of employment of the vast resources of coal in the maritimes and in Alberta, and
Supply-Secretary of State may I, by way of comment, simply mention the fact that in a number of places in Europe they are developing electric energy from the burning of coal in seams underground, and producing electric energy at costs a little higher than hydroelectric power. That is being carried on today with tremendous success in Russia, Germany, and in Poland. So much for that particular field of research. That is merely a hint, I think, of the wide scope for research of this kind.
But I come back to the fact that in this great development that has taken place in the years during and since the last war we have been very largely the heirs or assigns, or perhaps I should put it the other way and say the assigns or heirs to inventions in the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and other countries. We have been the assigns in the case of the United States and Britain, and we have been the heirs through a process of international legal procedure in the case of Germany, Japan, and some other countries.
Our automobile production, our electrical production, our employment of wood resources, most of these things largely employ at this time the patents and design that have been the result of long years of research and experiment in the United States. But that is only natural. Companies like the Ford Motor Company, General Motors, and Chrysler very naturally make automobiles of the same design and pattern as those which have come off the drafting boards in the United States as a result of research there. In the case of great electrical companies like General Electric, Westinghouse and English Electric, there again we use very largely the patents, designs and research of the parent organizations in the United States and Britain of those companies which have been located in Canada.
There has, of course, been very considerable Canadian development in the field of research. I suggest, however, that here is one field in which Canadians today are challenged to establish their own independence and to follow a new line in industry, in the employment of agricultural production, in the employment of many of our new-found minerals, in the employment of various products used, particularly those used in the employment of our seafood and fresh water food, along different lines than have yet been discovered in any other land. After all, no 15 million people in the world today have the bounty which Providence has placed at our disposal, and the value of that bounty will in large measure be determined by research which will decide the kind of final product that goes to the consumer from these various things.

Supply-Secretary of State
Now, Mr. Chairman, I do speak on this subject in some detail because it happens to be a subject with which I was closely associated not so many years ago. As the minister knows, research in this country is carried on not only in the government field by the national research council, but also by the Ontario research foundation, the research council of Alberta, the British Columbia research council, the research foundation of Nova Scotia, and the specialized research organizations in the province of Quebec where they have been set up in different specialized fields. These organizations have done great work but one of the things I found in my earlier inquiry into this subject at the time I had the responsibility for introducing certain legislation in the Ontario legislature was that there is a great need for information about research, for the pooling of research knowledge, and for the integration of research generally by voluntary efforts based upon readily available information.
Merely to give an example of the almost incredible duplication we found in some cases, I discovered on inquiry that at the time we were setting up a new research group to co-ordinate research there were three different organizations which, unknown to each other, were conducting research into blood diseases then affecting partridge in the province of Ontario. It was fairly extensive research. Of course, it was something that affected the tourist business and the people that were interested in sport. For instance, people making ammunition were interested in there being more partridge; sportsmen were interested in there being more partridge; and the government was interested in the disease which possibly might be contagious and might affect other birds or even animals. As the result of the setting up of this integrating committee, that inquiry was all co-ordinated into one single research activity.
We found other cases of duplication and multiplication in matters that to some might seem to be more important than were the mortal statistics of the partridge population of the province of Ontario. However, this procedure was welcomed. I know that the same experience has been found by the national research council as that found by these other provincial organizations I have mentioned. Mr. Chairman, it is a fact, however, that a great deal of patient and constant educational work needs to be done in this country in order to demonstrate to our manufacturers that co-operation in research is not in conflict with normal healthy competition in most cases but that, in fact, it is to the mutual advantage of all.

What is known as group research-and that is a name that now has special significance-is developing rather slowly in Canada. We have one example of group research in Canada that is a stimulating example of what can be done. It is in the Sarnia field where both the public development in the Polymer plant and the private development in the Dow Chemical plant are associated in an effective partnership along with other new industries that have recently started there and are carrying on very successfully different types of group research.
Canada today is operating in a highly competitive market. We have said that before. We should continue to repeat it. What we face is not merely a competition based upon the skill of the worker, the energy and drive of management or the availability of capital. It is something that is based upon the research which will put in the hands of the ultimate consumer the highest quality product that can come from any particular article. Why is it that today most people concede that Germany produces the best camera equipment? We had some reference to a German company which has recently set up in Canada and which is developing here a new and highly successful industry based upon German research. It is because of their tremendous concentration on research. A large part of the almost unbelievable revival of industrial production in western Germany is the result of the devotion of an extremely large part of their manpower to pure research. As a result, in Germany today there will be seen in the shops articles not only of high quality but of new design and of new uses which are giving many of the producers an advantage in world competition in these days.
I should like to say that, along with group research, we have evidence of what can be achieved by highly specialized research. One of the most remarkable examples in the world-if not perhaps the most remarkable one-of the value of pure research is to be found at the Philips electric plant at Eindhoven in Holland. There, in a country that could be contained within the boundaries of lake Ontario, where a population much smaller than ours occupies that small land area, there is to be found an industrial plant employing more than 30,000 workmen in one place as well as with subsidiary plants in other places. Their world position in the highly competitive field of electrical production, and particularly electronics, has been based on the concentration on pure research.
In Eindhoven alone I found over 2,000 men and women working on nothing but pure

research. As a result, they have been years ahead in many new types of production in the electronic and mechanical-electric field and in the heavy electrical production field. It is that factor alone, along with the skill of the workmen, the drive of the management and the availability of markets by seaborne routes, that has given them this tremendous industry in what is such a comparatively small country.
I mention this example to suggest the wide, almost limitless field for inquiry that exists. In this country with our enormous resources, how can we put those raw materials to still greater effect than is now being done in Holland where they must import all their raw materials and yet are able to produce this extraordinary result because of research itself? How can we widen in every way the employment of our agricultural products, of which we have such an abundance? Agricultural chemurgy is today one specialized field of chemical research that needs to be explored in this country in order to find new ways of turning into finished industrial products the enormous food surpluses we normally have. In our competition not only with the United States and Britain but with Germany and Japan as well,-and I would underline Germany and Japan with their high skill and low wages-we must in this competitive world be prepared to meet them on even terms. We can only do that by a process of education and encouragement of research, along with inquiry into practical methods of research.
While I certainly believe in the encouragement of such examples of private research as are to be found in the Philips plant in Eindhoven-yes, are to be found in some of our great wood products industries in this country today-may I suggest that we should also remember that there may be some types of development where, under the national research council or some of the provincial research organizations, pilot plants may well be the answer to the problem. Those pilot plants might be conducted in co-operation with industry or separately, all depending on the particular circumstances. This also is a field of exploration that is before us.
All I have sought to do, Mr. Chairman, is by illustration to express my own belief in the vital importance of research to Canada at this time and to suggest some lines of inquiry which this commission might follow in seeking to place before the government recommendations or legislation that would encourage research throughout Canada.
I want to go back and to say only a few words about one subject I mentioned before.
Supply-Secretary of State I mentioned what happened in the case of the invention of the jet engine by a young Englishman named Whittle. I recalled that Sir Robert Watson-Watt, the man primarily responsible for the invention of that other great development of the war period, radar, had pointed out that as the result of a certain lack of supervision of patents and through no fault of Whittle, certainly through no lack of loyalty or intense devotion to the British cause, the patent of this new device had become public property. I pointed out that German agents had obtained full drawings of the patent and that actually, although it was a British invention, the Germans had produced jet engines before they were produced in Britain with the result that many of the jets that have been employed by the Russians in the past few years are the direct heirs and descendants of that unfortunate accident.
I say that because we all know that Russian jet development is almost entirely dependent upon the fact that Russia occupied East Germany where the great engine plants had been established to keep them as far away as possible from British, American and Canadian bombing, and that therefore they acquired these plants where they still stood and they absorbed much of the technical skill that was available. I want to repeat that this was not something merely to illustrate caution. That was a tragic incident that has actually increased the danger to the whole world on a scale that we can hardly yet realize. It is likely that those who saw that huge Tupelov bomber fly over Red square a few weeks ago would not have seen such an event for years to come had it not been for the accidental discovery of that patent through the very simple circumstance that it was patented in the ordinary way and became available to German agents who passed it on to their own government.
Along with the inquiry into ways by which we can encourage research, may I most strongly urge that an inquiry also be conducted into the way in which, without in any way limiting the initiative of our people and suppressing inventive development, we may seek to avoid a repetition of that tragic event which has greatly increased the danger to every one of us at this time.
This is a subject perhaps second to none in its importance to the development of Canada. Research at a high level, research such as is applied to industry in Germany, Japan, Holland, the United States and Britain at this time, can expand employment enormously in the use of the resources we possess. This inquiry could well open the door to new
5444	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State stages of development which would mean prosperity to Canada on a scale of which we have hardly yet dreamed.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before it carries, if the minister is not going to make any comment on the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, which I rather felt he might do-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was going to wait until I had heard all hon. members.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to hear the minister indicate that he intends to reply. When he replies I wish he would also cover in brief outline the procedure under which it is intended that this inquiry should operate. Is it intended that the commissioner should sit in various parts of Canada or is it felt that the purpose will be sufficiently served if he sits in Ottawa and invites interested parties either to send written or to make oral representations in Ottawa? Is it proposed that the chief justice should be the sole commissioner, or will he have other commissioners sitting with him? What arrangements are being made for technical and advisory staff? These questions are ones which occur to me concerning which I think the house and the country would be interested in knowing the answers so that it will be as well and as widely understood as possible how those who are interested in this matter should go about making their representations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I have listened carefully, as I think every other hon. member did, to the most interesting and, for me, in many respects instructive observations made by the Leader of the Opposition. Of course I know that he understands as well as the rest of us that the only way in which this commission of inquiry can promote research is an indirect one. The positive promotion by the federal authorities of research is the responsibility of such organisms as the national research council, the defence research board, the fisheries research council, the various research organizations in the Department of Agriculture, the bureau of mines and a great many other places in the federal government, as well as of provincial agencies and university bodies to which the hon. gentleman referred.
I do think, however, that his contribution was in no sense irrelevant because I think it is most important that the patent law and the law with respect to industrial design should be considered precisely from the points of view the hon. member mentioned. In other words, the primary purpose of having


patents, as I conceive it, is not to create or consecrate a particular kind of private property for the benefit of some individual to be used selfishly for his own good; it is primarily to give stimulus to inventiveness because it is believed that such stimulus is in the public interest. To the extent to which our law can be so drafted and administered that it does tend to encourage Canadians to do independent research and encourages them by giving them the benefit of their research, to that extent will the industrial and other developments which are based on that kind of research also benefit.
I do feel, and it is one of the reasons the government felt it was desirable to have a commission of inquiry, that the first and most important consideration in the minds of the commissioners should be how will these laws conduce to the development of this country. I think that the Leader of the Opposition, by emphasizing the points he did-and I shall see that they are drawn to the attention of the commission of inquiry-will give an orientation to the inquiry which will be most helpful.
With respect to the question of maintaining proper security for patents that are of significance from the point of view of the defence of the country, I indicated the other day on the third reading of the bill that was before the house at that time, and I do not think I can indicate any more than that, that the present law does contain about as much protection as anybody has been able to conceive it is possible to put in the law itself. But I will certainly suggest to the commissioners that they should give consideration to any method by which they think the law can be strengthened.
I think the Leader of the Opposition is right in feeling that it is not so much the words of the law as the way that it is administered and the vigilance with which these things are scrutinized to make sure, when an application is made to patent any invention such as the one to which he referred, that before publicity of any kind is given to it it is referred to the proper organization, such as the defence research board, which body can consider its merits and exercise their best judgment as to whether or not it is the kind of thing which requires secrecy for national security reasons.
As to the question of procedure, I have had one or two discussions with Chief Justice Ilsley about the way in which the inquiry will be carried on. I do not think it would be wise to commit the commission in advance by saying that they would not sit anywhere except in Ottawa. Personally I hope it will not be necessary to go anywhere else. I do

not feel that this is the kind of inquiry where, in the normal course, it should be necessary to travel about the country. I conceive that the number of people who will wish to make representations will be relatively small, as it is a relatively specialized field. It would probably be quite adequate to provide for hearings here in Ottawa. I do not think it would be wise to limit the commission.
It is not intended that Chief Justice Ilsley should be the sole commissioner. Perhaps I might disclose to the committee that the government has already given consideration to the personnel of the commission and it is intended to ask, in addition to Chief Justice Ilsley, Mr. Guy Favreau, who is a member of the restrictive trade practices commission and Mr. W. W. Buchanan, who is a member of the tariff board, to be commissioners with Chief Justice Ilsley. The reason for the selection of these two gentlemen is that there is an obvious relationship between the fields of patents and copyright on the one hand, and restrictive practices, as well as the administration of customs on the other. It was felt that it would be of benefit to the inquiry to have the particular kind of experience these gentlemen already have in the ordinary occupations in which they are serving, and that their service on this commission would increase their value as public servants when they have completed this work.
Now, as to technical assistance Chief Justice Ilsley is giving some consideration to the kind and extent of technical assistance he will need, apart from such assistance as will be provided by the government through its regular agencies, such as the commissioner of patents-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Whether it is coming from inside or outside, that is what I had in mind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There will be, I believe, a necessity for some other technical assistance, but Chief Justice Ilsley has by no means made up his mind yet as to what he is really going to need. It is my hope and expectation that this inquiry can be set up in the next fortnight or so and begin work immediately. I plan to have some discussions myself with the chief justice, and the officers of my department will be having them as well. Our feeling is that the commission itself will have to decide what it needs, and what it needs it will get.
Perhaps I should say one more word about the amount. This is a real estimate. It is perhaps a "guesstimate", if I may use the language of Time magazine. No one can forecast very accurately, except in relation to previous experience what such a commission will cost.
Supply-Secretary of State


George Alexander Drew: It is not a conservative figure?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In view of the fact Chief Justice Ilsley is going to preside over this commission I do not think it will be run extravagantly.


George Alexander Drew: I assure the minister, Mr. Chairman, that I do not propose to extend my remarks. I am grateful for the indication that he will consider the suggestions that have been made. I wish to add one other suggestion that I omitted because I was speaking without notes on this subject. One subject that I would hope would also be included in the terms of reference, and it is to the scope of the terms of reference that my remarks have been directed, is the assistance that can be given to research, whether it be industrial or agricultural research or other types of research, by such things as tax relief, accelerated depreciation on research equipment and other encouragements of that kind. This step has been taken in Britain and the United States, and more particularly in those European countries that have been encouraging research so strongly in the past few years. I would hope that the terms of reference would specifically call for an inquiry into that type of encouragement of research, so that we could have a digest of the experience of other countries in that field.	.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I should say one word on that point. It is a point upon which I could not make any commitment without consulting my colleagues because to include subjects of this sort would probably be trespassing upon responsibilities that are not mine. I shall draw the hon. gentleman's remarks to the attention of those of my colleagues who are not here and who are concerned with this suggestion. I shall see that the suggestion is given consideration by the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to make one comment on the personnel of the proposed commission, Mr. Chairman, not in any sense to suggest that their qualifications have not been already carefully considered, but just to express the hope that by virtue of setting up this particular commission of inquiry and including upon it a member who is also a member of the restrictive trade practices commission, that it will not unduly limit the scope of that equally important inquiry the restrictive trade practices commission is making into the subject of loss leaders. I am sure that will have been carefully considered, but it is a caution which occurs to me. We are all extremely interested in the protection of the small businessman who

Supply-Justice
is suffering as a result of the loss leader practice now. I would not like to see anything done which would hinder the prosecution of an inquiry into that practice.
I just wondered whether possibly there would not be personnel available elsewhere who might not actually have to come from that commission itself. Has that point been given consideration?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, that point was given careful consideration. I had several consultations with the Minister of Justice about that point and also with Mr. Favreau, as well as with Chief Justice Ilsley. It was felt that priority would have to be given to the primary duties of Mr. Favreau as a member of the restrictive trade practices commission, but that his services were so desirable on other grounds that this inquiry would adapt itself to the exigencies of the other service.
It is not my expectation that it will be possible for this commission to complete its work in time to contemplate any legislation at the next session of parliament. I do not think that would be physically possible, and therefore I do not believe we will be impeding the work of this commission of inquiry in any way by giving the priority I have indicated to the other.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Is it the desire that I should call items 728 and 729?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, proceed with Justice.


William Alfred Robinson: We shall then proceed with the Department of Justice, item No. 162.



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
162. Departmental administration (including the former administration of justice-miscellaneous expenditure, including expenses of litigated matters, $427,600.
Edmund Davie Fulton: On this item, Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate to raise several matters of a general nature. The one which I have particularly in mind to discuss is the matter of the security screening system in practice for the purpose of ensuring that all those in the public service shall be loyal to Canada and to no other country. There has been considerable discussion of this matter during this session, largely by way of question and answer and also considerable comment on it in the press.
Before I proceed with any general remarks, I should like to ask the minister if he will indicate whether, as a result of any consideration the government may have given following that earlier discussion, there are any substantial changes in the method now

being followed or in the government's readiness to give information which previously has been withheld. This might obviate the necessity for any remarks at this time.


Mr. Garson:: The answer to my hon.
friend's question is no.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then, I should like to proceed by reviewing in as brief a fashion as I can the discussions that have taken place in the past, and laying before the committee some reasons that I believe indicate there should be a substantial change in the policy of the government, not only with respect to its machinery for carrying out any screening but with respect to its policy of giving information to this country on the results of those efforts.
I state at the outset my opinion that there is an entirely undesirable and unnecessary degree of secrecy surrounding this matter of security within the public service. There can be surely no disagreement on the general principle that, in the light of the revelations made here in 1945 and 1946, and more recently in Australia in connection with the Petrov case, and what we know generally of communist methods, it is essential that industry, government, and all those concerned with the particular or general administration of our affairs should ensure to the maximum possible degree that those who are charged with responsibility in any way in connection with the handling of those affairs should be loyal to Canada, and should not have communist loyalty.
It is on that basis that the security program was set up. I feel also that there would be no disagreement with two other general provisions of the program, the first of which is the desirability of ensuring that the program is as effective as it can be made to accomplish its object of screening out all those as to whose loyalty there is reason for question or doubt. And, along with that, there should be the fulfilment of the desire to ensure that the working of that system is not unfair to those who may come under suspicion. It is in connection with the problem of compromising those two equally desirable objectives, the efficiency of the screening system and its effectiveness, and the preservation of fairness to those who may be subject to review, that the difficulty seems to lie.
I suggest that what has been revealed during the past session, and on earlier occasions, indicates that our system falls down badly under both these headings. The reasons I advance in support of that proposition are those features which have emerged from the discussion of the subject. The first is the unreasonable and, I think, the dangerous

refusal of this government to give information as to what results have been achieved by security measures. I wish to be careful not to make any statements which are not based on facts. But here we are left to draw our own conclusions in the realm of fancy, and that is as a result of the government's refusal to give information to which I submit the house and the country are properly entitled.
It is difficult therefore to make statements on the basis of fact. Nevertheless I think we do have to draw such conclusions as it is reasonable to draw from the situation as we find it. And it is as consistent with the government's refusal to give information to draw the conclusion that the results of their system have not been effective as it would be to draw the conclusion that they have been effective. If they have been effective, then I can see no reason why the results should not be made known. Because I submit those results can be made known in a manner which is not unfair to any individual, and which would result in no prejudice either to the private or public interest.
What is the history of this refusal to give information? The government says it cannot be given without prejudice to individuals. Well, so far as this year is concerned, on March 3 I began to ask detailed questions regarding the government's security screening program. It was on that date that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as the Acting Prime Minister, refused that information. The following question, to which an answer was refused, is found at page 2618 of Hansard:
1.	Since January 1, 1947, how many dominion government employees of all categories have been screened out of their former positions for security reasons in each department, agency, or crown corporation?
2.	Of these (a) how many have been dismissed from the department, agency or crown corporation in question; (b) how many have been moved to other less sensitive positions?
No name was asked for; not even the identification of a position within a department was asked for. All that was asked was a simple total, broken down by departments, agencies of government or crown corporations. On that occasion the Acting Prime Minister said:
In my opinion it is not in the public interest to say why people were dismissed from the service, whether it was on security grounds or otherwise.
I submit it is very much in the public interest to know whether people have been dismissed from the public service on security grounds. It is in the public interest, and for two reasons: First, we are entitled to know whether disloyal people have been found in the public service and, if so, what damage may have been done during the period they were in it. Secondly, we are entitled to know
Supply-Justice
how effective government measures are, by which they are seeking to protect the public interest and the loyalty of our public service. How can it be argued that this parliament, which represents the people of Canada, is not entitled to information of that kind, and is not entitled to know whether people have been dismissed from the service on security grounds?
I pointed out to the Acting Prime Minister on that date that the questions as asked would not give the identity of any individual. I am prepared to admit that unless an individual himself seeks to make a public issue of it, and is prepared to have it made public, he is entitled to such protection as he can be given in connection with these security matters. I pointed out to the Acting Prime Minister- the Minister of Trade and Commerce-on that occasion that no individual would be identified by giving an answer to the questions in the form in which they were asked. I pressed him for a reconsideration of his decision. That reconsideration was refused, and the questions were ordered to be dropped.
In the course of that further discussion the Minister of Trade and Commerce used a word, the use of which I cannot believe was other than deliberate, because the question had been under consideration and had appeared on the order paper for some days. He used the word "McCarthyism" in a context which could only have the implication that those who sought to obtain any information whatsoever about this matter were guilty of that particular form of activity. In what I shall have to say a little later I think it will emerge clearly that if there is any "McCarthyism" involved here it rests squarely with the government, and the likelihood of it is made more probable because of the course of action followed by the government itself in connection with its whole program of security screening.
Here, this type of factual information as to the totals of those affected is denied. We do not find that to be the situation in the United States or in Great Britain. I am not referring at all to the particular committee in the United States headed by the senator whose name is so well known to us here. But there are other and more appropriate methods of inquiry being conducted down there by the executive itself, following procedures which I think it might be generally agreed are on a sound and proper basis.
By coincidence, on the very same day that the answers were being refused to the Canadian people, similar information was being made available by the executive of the United States to the people of the United States. I have a report which appeared in the New

Supply-Justice
York Times of March 3. Actually it was given down there the previous day. It was given in Washington on March 2. Here are some examples of the information which the people of the United States are given as to the effectiveness of their security screening program. The article commences:
383 persons were included today in a broadly-defined subversive category among 2,427 security risk separations from government employment during the final seven months of 1953. Philip Young, chairman of the civil service commission, explained to a Senate committee however, that he could not say any or all of the 383 were either communists or subversives.
He said they had "derogatory material of a substantial nature in their personnel file".
Therefore, without identifying anybody the total is given. A little later in the article it indicates that a complete breakdown of the results of their security screening program has also been given. It reported a total of 1,074 dismissals and 1,353 resignations under the security program between May 28 and December 31 last year. Mr. Young gave this breakdown, and the article continues to give other figures. It is a very complete breakdown of a total of over 2,000 cases. That is the type of information that I asked for here in this house on March 3 and was refused by the Canadian government on that day, but which had been given to the United States people just one day before.
Then, in case it is felt that the practice in the United States is coloured by what goes on there under the guise of McCarthyism- although I point out that this was not a McCarthy type of inquiry, this was a careful, cautious, and sensible statement made by the executive, in contrast to the other-but in case it is felt that what is done down there under the present circumstances would not be a safe example, I refer to the practice in Great Britain, where on at least two occasions to my knowledge and I should think probably far more, very complete information has been given as to the results of the government security screening program, as to what has been found, the number of dismissals, and so on. In 1950 information was given out through the British information service as follows:
The number of cases considered by the end of April, 1S50 was 86, of which one was because of membership in the fascist party. The following table shows the disposition of the cases considered.
Then, they give a breakdown as to how that whole 86 are made up. It might be interesting to read this into the record:
Transferred to non-secret departments .... 32
Resigned	 5
Exonerated and reinstated	 19
That, Mr, Chairman, is a most interesting figure, in view of what I shall have to say 
under the second general heading of my criticism of the government's security methods; that is, that they do not come up to standard on the point of preserving fairness to the dismissed civil servant because there is no appeal system provided here as there is in the United Kingdom. It is very interesting to note that under their system 19 suspected civil servants were exonerated and
reinstated. The breakdown continues:
Dismissed, (including 1	fascist)	 7
Retired for health reasons before completion
of investigations	  1
On special leave, either sub judice or confirmed communists awaiting transfer or dismissal	 2
I can see no reason why that sort of information should not be given here. Indeed, there is no reason, there can be no justification, for refusal of similar information in Canada. That was April, 1950. On a later occasion similar information was given in the British House of Commons. Actually, this information came to my attention through a United States newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor, of March 17, 1954, which contained a report reading as follows:
British security investigations have resulted in the dismissal of 24 British civil servants, chancellor of the exchequer Richard Butler told the House of Commons. Another 72 persons have been transferred to other duties, he said.
It will be seen, Mr. Chairman, that that statement of 1954 brings more up to date the statement given up to the end of April, 1950.
I have not taken the time to make a detailed check of the British Hansard to find if there were other occasions when these periodic reports on the results and the effectiveness of their security system were made to their house, but I should think it is probably extremely likely. And since what has been said makes perfectly evident that the United Kingdom, which pays as much attention to the question of the security and the dignity of the individual as we do here, finds this factual information as to the total number affected can be given without prejudice to them at all, then there is no justifiable reason whatsoever why the same course should not be followed here.
I have indicated that on March 3 an attempt to get this sort of information was refused by the government. I have indicated that in other jurisdictions that information is given. In case it might be felt that that was an isolated case and that the government would perhaps reconsider it, I made another effort to obtain factual information. The question appeared in Hansard of March 25, 1954 and was answered on March 29. The question was as follows:
On the occasion when the loyalty screening of government employees was first completed, were

there any dismissals or transfers, and if so, how many, in the following departments or agencies of government; (a) external affairs; (b) national defence; (e) national research council; (d) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (both domestic and international services); (e) national film board?
I think it will be agreed, Mr. Chairman, that generally speaking these are very important departments or agencies of government having to deal, as they do, with matters vital to our national defence, or alternatively matters of general informational services where communist leanings or communist loyalties could be most disastrous from the point of view of their effect on the material which goes out over those services. Therefore it is a very important thing for the people of Canada to know how effective has been the result of the government screening in these vital departments. The answer was given by the Prime Minister himself on this occasion as follows:
The only answer I can make is that this government must take the responsibility of refusing to make a public record of the information requested by the question for the reasons given by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) in answering orally a similar question on March 3.
So that the decision of the government remains the same. This information, of a type which is available to the people of the United States and of the United Kingdom, is not to be made available to the Canadian people through their House of Commons. I pointed out immediately to the Prime Minister, Mr. Chairman, as you will probably recall, that similar information had been given here on a previous occasion with respect to the national film board. On that occasion, when we asked a question as to how many releases for security reasons had been made from that board we were given the figures. They will be found at page 1343 of Hansard of March 29, 1950 when, after having made a general report on the screening of the national film board, the minister was asked a question as to the numbers released, and he replied as follows:
Perhaps I should tell the house that during the course of the screening there were some 580 odd files examined, and as a result thereof, and for reasons which could be attributed to the security screening, there were three separations from the board.
I also find that on another occasion in 1950 I asked a question as to the number of separations from the national research council for security reasons and I was given the information that two had been thus separated. On that occasion we were given their actual positions on the board. Therefore, back in 1950 there was no objection to answering one or two isolated questions and answering them in more detail than they are now being asked. Yet, in 1954 questions dealing with
Supply-Justice
exactly similar matters in a more general form with less detail are being refused. In 1950 the government was willing to say how many separations had been made from the national film board for security reasons, and in 1954 it is not.
What reason, Mr. Chairman, can there be? What harm was done by information given in 1950, except perhaps to the government? What harm was done to the general interest or welfare which could result in a change of decision? I suggest that we can only draw the conclusion with which we are left, and on the basis of lack of information that conclusion is as logical as any other conclusion can be, namely that the only interest which could suffer is that of the government, and that it is for that reason they do not wish to disclose this information. That is the reason for the change of heart and the change of attitude between 1950 and 1954.
Whatever the reason I submit that the present policy is wrong and unjustified, and indeed is dangerous rather than beneficial to the public interest, because I submit it is dangerous to leave the people of Canada in the dark as to the effectiveness of the government's security screening measures.
Not only are we refused information as to the effectiveness of these measures from the point of view of the number of dismissals which may have resulted, and which would enable us to make some estimate as to whether this screening is being vigorously and successfully pursued, but we are also denied information as to who is carrying it out. The Canadian people are not to be permitted to know the personnel who are in large measure charged with supplying the advice on which a decision is made as to whether a civil servant should be removed. I can think of nothing more important for us to know, and no information to which we are more entitled, than the names of the persons who are in charge of this highly important and in fact vital duty in connection with the protection of the public interest.
But hon. members will recall that when we asked the names of the personnel of the security panel, the security panel which, as I understand it, passes on the more important cases of security investigations, we were told that it is an established and general principle to preserve the anonymity of civil servants serving on interdepartmental committees of this nature. All we are to know is that this panel is made up of senior officers of government departments which are themselves most concerned with security matters. We were not even to know whether the present Secretary of State on a former occasion served on the secretariat of

Supply-Justice
that panel. He was not being asked whether he is a member of the panel now. We asked whether he had formerly been on it. Perhaps the mistake I made was asking whether, if he had been on it, he has now an opportunity to answer officially any questions with relation to the work of the panel, because I can imagine the government saying, "Oh, oh, if we say he was on it then perhaps he will be pressed to give an answer to some questions so we had better hide again behind this cloak of secrecy and simply say we are not going to say whether he was on it or not." Of course, it is a matter of general knowledge that the present Secretary of State was on the secretariat at the time when he-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That it not correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, now we have the answer to my question, Mr. Chairman, and how much and simpler it would have been if the government had said "No" when I asked the question some two or three months ago. Now we have got that information-


Stanley Howard Knowles: We thought he was ubiquitous.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and it need not have been necessary to take so long to get it. The Secretary of State now indicates he is willing to give some answers to these questions: I hope his attitude will permeate the epidermis of the Minister of Justice and produce in him some reaction and also in the Prime Minister, so that we can perhaps have a realistic approach to this question of security screening and find out some information as to what is going on and who is carrying out this work. Perhaps I may ask the Secretary of State while he is in this answering mood, if he will tell us whether he is on the security panel at the present time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is as silent as the Minister of agriculture was a little while ago.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We will leave him to think that one over. The second branch on which I suggest our security screening system falls far short of the desirable standard is that it does not ensure that there will be the maximum possible fairness to the individual who may come under security investigation.
But perhaps, Mr. Chairman, before I go on to that I might mention one other factor in connection with the important point that this house is entitled to information as to who is carrying out this work, and is entitled to know who is serving on the security panel. One of the reasons why we seek this information is that we cannot but help recall with considerable misgiving, when we think about it, the examples of inefficiency

in the past with respect to this matter of security in the public service. We think of revelations at the time of the royal commission on espionage when it was made clear to what extent there had been communist infiltration into the public service. That started the matter off. We have to remember that there had been that infiltration and no one in the government knew anything about it.
Then we were further disturbed to learn that, notwithstanding that there had been a notebook turned over by Mr. Gouzenko, showing among others the name of Klaus Fuchs, that matter had not been followed up with the result that Fuchs continued for an appreciable period to turn over to his Russian masters secrets of vital importance to the defence of the free world. Although this name had been in the notebook turned over by Mr. Gouzenko, when I pressed in 1950 for information regarding measures taken to investigate the names of others in the notebook we got answers which are masterpieces as an example of lack of information. They were lengthy, courteous, but completely uninformative as to what was being done to follow up and to make sure that all those with their names in the notebook had been investigated, and that those who could genuinely be suspected with regard to their loyalty had been removed from the public service.
We could obtain no information to satisfy us that the government had acted vigorously under that heading. And I was disturbed to find out just recently, from an answer given to me by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, that although Sam Carr was clearly shown to be involved in this espionage ring and was also shown to have obtained his certificate of naturalization by fraud, that that certificate has not been revoked.


Mr. Harris:: Would my hon. friend state the nature of the fraud?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It will be found in the report of the royal commission on espionage that at the time when he made his application for citizenship he said in evidence that he had no loyalty to any country other than Canada, and it was later found that at the very time he made that statement he was engaged in espionage. If the minister cares to read the report of the royal commission with particular reference to Sam Carr he will find very interesting reading showing the extent to which efforts were made to give Carr his citizenship at the very time when he was engaged in espionage.


Walter Edward Harris: I read the report.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That man is now free to wander about the world with a valid certificate of naturalization giving him all the position- until it is revoked-of a Canadian citizen. But in the answer given to me by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration it is stated clearly that Sam Carr swore an oath or subscribed to a declaration of allegiance. I had better read the question and the answer. The question is as follows:
In order to obtain his certificate of naturalization on March 1, 1945, did Sam Carr swear an oath or subscribe to a declaration of allegiance or make any other form of affirmation of loyalty to His Majesty and to Canada?
The answer is: yes. Well, on March 1, 1945, he was up to his neck in espionage under orders from his Russian masters, yet swearing allegiance to Canada and to His Majesty. The second question was as follows:
Has his grant of naturalization ever been revoked on grounds that it was obtained by false representations or on any other grounds?
The answer is: no. The result is, as I have said, that Sam Carr is now free to produce that certificate which has the effect of enabling him to say "I am a Canadian citizen"-and it has never been revoked- wherever he may go.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I turn to the second ground of criticism of the government's security screening measures, namely, that they have in them all the elements which make them potentially unfair and in fact unfair to civil servants who may be investigated. I would point out that under the Canadian system there exists no right of appeal by any civil servant who may be suspected or who may have been dismissed from his position or transferred to a less sensitive position on security grounds. That fact was made clear in lengthy answers to questions asked in the house and which I need not summarize in detail because I am sure the effect of them will be fresh in the minds of the members of the committee.
It will be recalled that the explanation was given that in arriving at their decisions as to the suitability of a civil servant to continue in his present employment, there were taken into account the associations of that civil servant with others who may be suspected or be known to be disloyal. The explanation was also given that when a decision v/as being arrived at as to the suitability or otherwise of the civil servant to continue in his employment, he was not confronted, as a general rule, with the statement that he was suspected and was not given an opportunity to clear himself of the suspicion. We therefore have two features. First, we have what can only be called the principle of guilt by association accepted in this method.
Supply-Justice
Second, we have the fact that the man suspected and in effect found guilty and removed from his employment is not given an opportunity to meet the case against him.
When you realize, Mr. Chairman, that those two aspects are present under our screening system, and then remember that the Minister of Trade and Commerce used the word "McCarthyism" as applied to those who were trying to get information on these things on March 3, 1954, I think you will agree with me when I say that, if there is McCarthyism here, you can see where it lies.
There are other and older forms than that one of vile investigating methods-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I think that my hon. friend-and I am sure quite unintentionally-[DOT] is misrepresenting, or perhaps has not remembered, the explanations which heretofore have been given about the very process which he is purporting to describe.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, indeed I have. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any point of privilege here. I certainly remember them and I am coming to them. I am going to show them to be completely unfounded and groundless.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I should like-


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister will have an opportunity to reply.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I must hear the minister's question of privilege before I can decide whether or not it is one.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend has been complaining, Mr. Chairman-


George Alexander Drew: What is the point of privilege?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I will state my question of privilege if my hon. friend will give me an opportunity to do so. My hon. friend has been complaining that he has had difficulty in getting from the government a description of what takes place in matters of this kind. Yet, in the face of that complaint, he himself goes on to describe what takes places. I suggest he has made it clear that the only source of information he could have for the statements he is making is the information which he obtained from the government. I should like to place on record this correction as to what it was he obtained from us.


Mr. Rowe:: There is no question of privilege in that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member is misrepresenting the information he has received from us.

Supply-Justice


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, by what the minister has said already you will see clearly that there is no question of privilege involved in this discussion at all.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Would you not like to have the explanation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have told the minister that I am going to deal with some of the so-called explanations and justifications contained in the answers. If the minister thinks I have not completely or fully placed the matter on the record he will have the opportunity to reply.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that my hon. friend has made it abundantly clear that any information he possesses is that which he has received from us-indeed his complaint is that he has not been able to get enough information about the matter-I think that he should-and I would say gladly-accept a correction when he is now laying before the house inaccurately information which he received from us.


William Earl Rowe: That is not a question of
privilege. It is a speech within a speech.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member is misquoting information which he obtained from the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We can read into the record the questions and the answers received. This is not a question of privilege. I will do that if the minister wants me to do so.


William Alfred Robinson: If the minister wishes to correct a statement which the hon. member for Kamloops has attributed to him, I think I should hear the minister. On the other hand,-


George Alexander Drew: ' Mr. Chairman,-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. On the other hand, if the minister intends to refer to some other matter, then I cannot hold it to be a question of privilege.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answers were given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, not by the Minister of Justice.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The description which my hon. friend has been purporting to give and has been giving rather inaccurately of what took place was the subject matter-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I rise-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I just finish?


George Alexander Drew: -on a point of order.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The minister is on his feet on a question of privilege.


George Alexander Drew: That is true. But the minister is not the chairman. I rose before Your Honour had sat down.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The Leader of the Opposition should not rise while I am on my feet.


George Alexander Drew: That is quite true, Mr. Chairman. I rose on a point of order, and I do not yet know under what rule you can tell what the point of order is before I present it. Are you prepared to hear the point of order?


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


George Alexander Drew: We will leave it until 2.30.


William Alfred Robinson: Perhaps we can discuss
both the question of privilege and the point of order at 2.30.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Saved by the bell!
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. When the committee rose at one o'clock some of the heat which we expect to find soon outside the chamber had apparently made itself apparent inside the chamber. The Minister of Justice had been addressing himself to a question of privilege and the Leader of the Opposition had risen on a point of order. During the luncheon adjournment, I had the opportunity of perusing Hansard, and after such perusal I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to citations 191, 192 and 193 of Beauchesne, third edition. I shall only refer to them briefly. Citation 191 reads in part as follows.
Only in very aggravated cases, requiring the immediate interposition of the house, will any business be suddenly interrupted.
In citation 192 we find the following:
A dispute arising between two hon. members as to allegations of facts hardly fulfils the conditions of a privileged question, and, if deemed to be a matter to be at once entertained, it is more convenient to postpone other business rather than extend the area of privilege.
I am of the opinion that perhaps there is not a true question of privilege here and that the hon. member for Kamloops should be allowed to continue. May I point out that under ordinary circumstances the time of the hon. member for Kamloops would have expired at one o'clock, but, owing to the interruption while we were discussing the question of privilege and the point of order, I think he is entitled to at least an additional five minutes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the care with which you have considered these matters. I should like to suggest that if you had gone on to citation 193 you might read into the record a reference to "so-called questions of privilege" which I would think would be the category in which this one would fall.
The subject I was dealing with when the minister raised his point was that the procedure the government follows in dealing with these matters of security is such as to open the door to the possibility of unfairness and, indeed, I submit there is inherent in the whole procedure itself an element of unfairness in that a decision will be arrived at in part upon the basis of the associations of the civil servant under suspicion to which that civil servant has no opportunity to answer. It is not only because of the possibility of an adverse decision being arrived at on the basis of association but on the general principle that a man who is suspected is apt to suffer prejudice to himself as a result of the suspicions against him and should have the opportunity to know the case and to answer it. That is inherent in our whole system of justice, and while I do not overlook the point that has been made before that here men are not, in the strict sense, on trial, nevertheless I submit the same principles apply.
There can be no more fundamental right than the right to a livelihood, the right to work, and yet that right is placed in jeopardy and the person apt to lose it has no opportunity even of knowing that his right is placed in jeopardy. A decision is made, is communicated to him and he either has to leave the government service altogether or is transferred to what is called a less sensitive position. That is not the system which is followed in other jurisdictions. There the civil servant is given the fullest opportunity of knowing the nature of the case against him, is asked if he wishes to make any explanation and is afforded the opportunity to make an explanation. There are tribunals set up before which the suspected person can appear and, as I have pointed out in an earlier quotation, in the United Kingdom there has been quite a substantial number of reinstatements as the result of the suspected person being given the opportunity to explain the situation on the basis of which he has come under suspicion and to produce a satisfactory explanation for the associations which he has made or other circumstances which have given rise to the suspicion.
I will conclude at this point, although I shall have more to say at a later stage, by
Supply-Justice
summarizing in this way. There can be no disagreement, I take it, that the government is under the very heavy obligation of ensuring the loyalty of the public service of Canada. However, I have given reasons why I believe that we have no cause to be satisfied at the present time that they are efficiently and vigorously discharging that obligation. We are not given any facts upon which we can base any such conclusion, and I have referred the committee to two or three examples from the past on the basis of which I suggest we have cause for uncertainty and dissatisfaction, because they are examples of past carelessness.
But, on the other hand, we have no assurance that whatever measures they do take are taken with fairness to the individual because, on the basis of the system as outlined by the ministers themselves, there exist these two particular features which carry with them, inevitably and inescapably, the element of unfairness. This element, I submit can be overcome by working out a method of appeal procedure along the lines that have been suggested previously, along lines which are suggested by the setting up of these procedures in other jurisdictions, particularly in the United Kingdom.
Before sitting down there is a correction I should like to make because I do not want to leave a wrong impression. When I was referring to the fact that Sam Carr had not had his certificate of naturalization revoked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration asked me in the course of my remarks whether it was alleged that Carr had acquired his certificate by fraud. As I recall it, I said that the report of the royal commission indicated that. I do not want to leave the impression that the report of the royal commission states as a fact that Carr acquired his naturalization certificate by fraud. What they do is to make it abundantly clear that at the time when he was granted the certificate in 1945 he was engaged vigorously in espionage activities. It is my own conclusion following from that, and on the basis of the answer that the minister gave to the written question-that he got the certificate on the basis of an allegation of loyalty to Canada and to His Majesty-that obviously he acquired it as the result of a fraudulent declaration.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder whether the minister has any comments to make on the matter. The minister still refuses to agree that there is justification for giving factual

Supply-Justice
information as to the number of cases thus far dealt with and the disposition of those cases?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I differ from
my hon. friend in what he has just said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: For what reasons does the
minister differ?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: For reasons that have been
many times explained.


Mr. Casselman:: Reasons of secrecy!


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister explain how he can reconcile his position with the fact that in the United Kingdom they give totals and break down the disposition of those totals without naming names-that is not asked for here-without doing any prejudice to the individual? If that can be done there how does it follow that it cannot be done here without giving rise to prejudice against the individual?


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is there some difference in human nature between the people of this country and the people in other countries? Is there some factor which would dictate a difference in policy?


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for
Macleod.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I have asked the minister questions which are reasonable and which I think deserve an answer. I have given the background for my questions and they are based on fact. I am not content to have the minister sit silent.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I know that the hon. gentleman is just as concerned as we are, Mr. Chairman, about the proper administration of security measures in this country. He asks if there is any difference between human nature in this country and human nature in other countries. I believe that is a rather rhetorical question. Of course there is no difference in human nature in this country and human nature in other countries. It so happens, however, that this government is responsible for the administration of security measures in this country and is not responsible for the administration of security measures in other countries. I am sure that the hon. member is doing his best to serve the interests of his fellow citizens. I hope he would be generous enough to think we too are doing our best.
It may be that we are making mistakes, but we are doing our best to balance this difficult equation between the security of the classified information that has to be available in some branches of the service, and

fairness to the individual. The hon. gentleman speaks about there being conviction and of there being exoneration as a result of appeals. I think that is not quite the question. No doubt the right to earn one's living is a right that it is damaging to take from anyone, but there is no inherent right in anyone to enjoy my confidence for confidential services in assisting me in discharging the responsibilities for which I am the one who is responsible to parliament and to the Canadian people.
This matter of reliance upon someone else with respect to confidential relations is not something that is determined on the basis of there being guilt or innocence. It is a matter of appreciation. The hon. gentleman is still exercising a profession that it was my privilege to exercise for a great many years. There is no obligation upon anyone in the community to employ him, any more than there was any obligation upon anyone in the community to employ me. It was only if they had confidence in an individual that they went to him for confidential advice and confidential assistance.
These matters are matters with which it is extremely delicate to deal, and about which we are just as careful as we can be; careful of the feeling that in our selection of confidential assistants we are taking every possible precaution to avoid the divulging of anything that is required to be kept secret. This does not involve only a question of loyalty, but it involves a question of there being solidity of character and discretion in the persons who are placed in that confidential relationship. There cannot be any question of exonerating someone about whom serious and honest doubts exist in the mind of the one who happens to be responsible for whatever is done by that one individual in assisting him in discharging his public responsibilities.
It is not a question of guilt or exoneration. It is a question of the degree of confidence one is prepared to place in an individual. Fortunately there are not many troublesome cases. There are some. The hon. gentleman says that up to 1950 we did disclose the numbers. There were two occasions when that was done, as the hon. member knows. There was a great and rather general anxiety about the film board in 1949 and 1950, to such an extent that the Department of National Defence was not entrusting its classified films to the film board. It was decided, therefore, that there would be a thorough screening of everyone in the film board.
When the minister made his report to parliament I believe he said some 580 files had

been carefully scrutinized, and there had been a few separations from the board required as a result of that incident. He did say then for the purpose of satisfying the public that there was not anything very serious the matter with the film board; that only three out of 580 odd had been found to be such that their separation from the board was required in order to restore full confidence in the security of information that might be imparted by work entrusted to the film board.
Then there was another question that came up a short time afterwards as to the number who had been separated for security reasons from the national research council. There was no reason whatever to refrain from giving that information. There were only two, and they had been prosecuted and convicted. Those were facts that already were public. We were very happy to be able to say there were no others. I would be very happy if I could say that since that time there have been no others anywhere in the public service, but I am not in a position to say that. There have not been very many in the civil service. There have been quite a number who had been enrolled in the armed services without having been screened, and when they were screened were found to be persons that it was felt preferable not to have in the armed forces. But in the civilian departments of government there have not been very many. There have been many cases of consideration as to whether someone who was not in a confidential relationship, not in a position where he had access to classified material should be placed in such a position. But that is something about which no statistics can be maintained.
If there is any doubt at all about the advisability of putting someone into a confidential relationship who has not had that relationship before-well, nothing happens. I have been quite concerned about this, and I have tried to get information-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hope you do not have the same difficulty I have had.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As a matter of fact I did have some difficulty, but perhaps not for the same reason. I did have some difficulty because there has been no compilation made of those who have been either not transferred to some other position because there was some doubt about them or those who have been transferred to some other position because there was some uneasiness about the possibility of their divulging information, either through motives of disloyalty or other reasons for possible indiscretions.
Supply-Justice
There has been no tabulation kept of that. I can understand that where they have a system regarding this as some kind of trial which has to take place before some kind of special board, there may be exact mathematical computations of the number of cases that come before that board, and there is possible a mathematical determination of what proportion is dealt with in one way and what proportion is dealt with in another way. Rightly or wrongly we have not felt that that was desirable, unless there is something that appears to us to justify a conviction. We try to avoid the possibility of leaks, without there being anything concretely determined about it.
There can be all sorts of examples. There is no guilt by association; but sometimes there is information about association that does disturb us. It is unfortunate, but I think we have to assume that there are efforts made by foreign powers to obtain through their espionage or intelligence services information that we think they should not have. And we have to be on our guard against the possibility of their furthering their purposes.
Are our measures fully effective? No one could say that, except those to whom these possible agents or others would make their reports; and we cannot get information from them. But we do assume that they are making efforts to get this kind of information, and we feel that we have to be on our guard There are personal files for all those who are in any confidential capacity, and all sorts of information becomes available and has to be_ considered. And whenever there is anything that appears to be derogatory in any way, because of character, because of the possible susceptibility to blackmail and because of social contacts, well, we have to appraise all that.
Fortunately it does not often make us feel that our responsibility requires action, and there has not been any case where we have been put in possession of material that would justify prosecution, though there have been some bits of information that might have been sufficient to make a case. But that would require disclosing the sources from which this information was obtained; and I think that that would be very detrimental to our counter-intelligence activities. I think that it is very necessary for all our counterintelligence activities that they be not publicized. They have to be secret in order to be effective.
Now, we did give serious consideration to the possibility of having some kind of appeal, and we came to the conclusion that we were better able to discharge our responsibility

Supply-J ustice
in that regard under the present system. We never refuse to reconsider a question; but we endeavour to exhaust everything that would be available on any kind of appeal, except, of course, saying to the individual, "I am sorry, but I feel that I can no longer rely upon you because of such and such a thing. What have you got to say?" That we have not felt would be the proper procedure, because that would make it an accusation, and we are not accusing anyone; any more than I felt I was being accused when someone who had been my client went to some other lawyer. I felt that it was his business to place his confidence wherever he considered he should do so. This matter of confidence in the reliability of others is not something that can be decided as a result of a trial. We have to be honest with others, but we have also to be honest with ourselves. And we try to keep ourselves surrounded by persons in whom individually we have implicit confidence.
With respect to unfairness about others, we are extremely cautious, even when it is possible to find some less sensitive position worth as much money. Because it may well be that if someone is taken out of a line of service for which he prepared himself, and which he intended to make his career, though he may get the same remuneration in some other job, it is still unfortunate to have to do anything like that. And we do our best to be fair. I do not think the hon. member, or any other member of parliament, has heard of any concrete case where unfairness was actually experienced, or where one felt that unfairness had been imposed upon any individual. Perhaps the hon. gentleman feels that the whole system is unfair; but the hon. gentleman must realize that it is not easy to maintain that balance. We may be wrong, but we do not think it would be better maintained by setting up any established and recognized security board to make decisions.
The hon. member has spoken about a security panel, and asked whether the Secretary of State was a member of it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of the secretariat.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: He asked if the Secretary of State had been secretary, and he said he had not been. The hon. member asked if the Secretary of State was still a member of the board. I think it has been made clear in the former statements that have been made here that this panel is an interdepartmental committee of officials. There is no member of the government on the panel, and there is no requirement that whatever anxiety any minister or deputy minister

may have about any individual shall go to the panel. It is the minister and the deputy minister who are responsible for the department.
They sometimes have recourse to the panel for the purpose of securing advice of those we have implicit confidence in because of the positions they occupy in the service, and the experience we have had with them while they were in the service. The declarations that have been made show, in a general way, how that interdepartmental committee is made up, and I do not think that the hon. gentleman feels there would be anything of value in disclosing at any particular moment the names of the officials who happened at that time to be members of the panel. They make no decisions; they simply tender advice and of course they do not deal only with the screening of individuals. They deal with the many and varied aspects of our counterintelligence service and consider and advise on the sufficiency of the measures that are taken with respect to those matters. I think that our efforts for the protection of the secrecy of our classified material have been successful. That of course is a matter of opinion because we were quite as surprised as anyone could be at the revelations which took place in 1945.
We have been possibly more careful, but we cannot be sure that, careful as we have been, we have been 100 per cent successful. That is something about which we cannot have accurate information. If we were to attempt to state figures we would have to go through a very large number of files, because there are many occasions where the possibility of indiscretion, the possibility of there being disloyalty, is one factor about which we are perhaps a little bit uncertain, but there develops some other obvious and plausible reasons for a change, and the change is made and made with all the appearance as having been made for other than security anxieties. I am not saying that we falsely represent, even to ourselves, why the change is being made, but this other situation is such that the change would probably be made anyway, and because we have not been too happy over the situation, a change will be made.
How would that be classified? Just as an illustration-I do not think it fits any case, so I can perhaps use it-suppose there is the case of a young office boy who is used for the purpose of delivering packets, and the question arises as to whether he could be used for the delivery of packets that would contain classified material. A special screening is made. Well, suppose it develops that we find that unfortunately there had been occasions

where there had been pilfering. Well, he certainly would not get the job that would put him in a position where he could have in his possession classified material. Would that be a security case, or would it be otherwise counted?
The statement of a certain number of figures would certainly not mean anything unless we were able to elaborate and to describe the cases to which these figures applied. In the two instances that the hon. gentleman referred to the situation was quite different. There was no possible objection and no possible reason for not disclosing them. There had been two employees of the national research council who had been prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act, had been found guilty and had been dismissed.
The hon. gentleman proceeds from the same premises that we proceed from. The system should be efficient in protecting the secrecy of what should be kept secret. It should be such as not to be unfair to individuals about whom any decision has to be made. It is in the application of those principles that the hon. gentleman feels there would be advantage in more publicity. We do not think that is so. I do not think the hon. gentleman really believes that we are refraining from making disclosures because we feel it would be embarrassing to the government. I do not see how it could be embarrassing to the government unless we were compelled to disclose that we are taking the kind of risks that we are unwilling to take. It certainly would be embarrassing to have to admit that we were taking calculated risks in a matter susceptible to such consequences as the maintaining of proper security of classified material.
It must not be overlooked, you know, that we belong to the NATO organization, and that we exchange a lot of classified information with our allies. Even if we could take the responsibility of calculated risks for ourselves, we certainly could not take any responsibility for calculated risks for classified information coming from other sources, or we would very soon cease getting that classified information. That does not mean that our affairs are being run by others, but it does mean that we assure our allies that we take every possible precaution and that we do not consider that everyone who has not been convicted is entitled to be trusted with this confidential information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member for Kamloops will permit me, I interjected something when he was speaking this morning which may have been misleading. I have not had any connection with the secretariat of 83276-345
Supply-Justice
the security panel, but I was, as I think is quite notorious, the chairman of the security panel for something over a year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are grateful to the Secretary of State for giving us information which was refused on a former occasion.
I appreciate the attitude of the Prime Minister and the careful way in which he has dealt with this matter. I agree the whole question is one of great concern, one which we should try to handle on the basis that it is of equal concern to all of us. If in a matter of this kind there are objections and differences of opinion then the objections can best be met and the differences can best be resolved with benefit to the nation by being discussed, with moderation on either side.
I am therefore glad the Prime Minister has taken this occasion to place before us so clearly those considerations which influence the government in deciding to continue unmodified, so far at any rate, its course of policy in dealing with this matter, so that they can be discussed fully.
There are one or two statements which the Prime Minister has made which indicate that we on this side have not perhaps made clear our approach to the matter and our suggestion as to how it may be dealt with. I hope we can make our views clear and the government will then be willing to reconsider again whether there is not some merit for what we say and some justification therefore on their part for modifying the present procedure.
The Prime Minister has based his case on the principle in part that no one has an absolute right to employment, particularly in a position with security implications. He has drawn a parallel between the employment of a civil servant and the retention by a client of a solicitor. He has pointed out that no solicitor has a right to continue to be retained by a client by whom he has been retained on a previous occasion. But, with respect, I do not think the parallel is apt.
The civil servant has made a choice which involves many sacrifices. We have always agreed, in the past at any rate, that remuneration in the public service is not on the same level generally speaking with remuneration in private employment. It is true they have some recompense for that. There is what we call security of tenure, and there used to be some pension privileges which did not exist in private employment. The civil servant has therefore made his choice and embarked on a career; he is committed to a course. I know the Prime Minister did not intend that his analogy should be taken too

Supply-Justice
literally and I do not wish to emphasize the point too much, but I think there is a very wide difference between the matter of selection which is exercised each time a client chooses a solicitor, and the permanence of the choice made by a civil servant. While I agree in strict fact that he has no irrevocable right to be continued in that employment, we on this side maintain he cannot be removed from that employment without the strictest proof possible that he is no longer qualified to continue in that employment.
Now, if that be the case-and that seems to me to be a matter of simple justice, on the basis of good relations alone, if you like, between the two sides-it seems to me that you cannot lightly dispense with the services of a man-though I am not suggesting it is done-who has dedicated himself to the public service and has perhaps been there for ten years. The problem therefore seems to me to be one of approach and we would place more emphasis on the necessity of maintaining that person in the public service, not up to the point where the public interest is going to be prejudiced, but simply as to where suspicion as to his suitability has been aroused so that the process of exhausting every possibility in his defence will be thoroughly carried out; so that that man may be given an opportunity to explain his position; after which the decision and the ultimate responsibility will have to be exercised.
The Prime Minister has stated that it may be that I take objection to this system on the basis that it is inherently unfair. It is true that I do so in part, and I think it could be made less inherently unfair. But I also take objection to it on the basis of the experience of one case within my knowledge where there was unfairness, and another case where, I admit, I have nothing but suspicion to go on, but it appears to me to be very suspicious. In the first case, the man involved does not even know the case against him. It is only by reason of a lengthy discussion with him myself that we have decided that it must be on grounds of security. We could be wrong, but in my opinion the conclusion is inescapable, though he has not been told that he was under suspicion in connection with security. He was not brought in and interviewed and told that certain facts seemed to require an explanation.
He has given me an explanation which seems to me to meet the situation and with which any reasonable person would be satisfied. He was not a highly placed civil servant in charge of confidential work, and in fact I think it would be fair to describe him as a rather junior employee. No reason was

given to him for his services being dispensed with and he cannot go to another employer without references. One can imagine what would happen. "Where did you last work? Why did you leave?" He would have to answer: "I do not know. They told me my services were no longer required."
That man has a choice. He has, I suppose, a right to make a public issue of the matter and bring his name before the public and let it be known that he fell under suspicion because of certain activities with a security implication. He says he thinks he can explain the matter and indeed he is convinced he can explain it satisfactorily, namely, that the association which previously existed no longer exists, and did not exist, incidentally, at the time his services were dispensed with. He can do that, or he can accept the situation because there is no procedure by which he can appeal, no procedure by which he can bring his case before the authorities and have a hearing before the authorities in person.
It is my desire, while still emphasizing the necessity of taking these measures which will protect the security of the public service, to work out a procedure within that general aim which will satisfy us as being as fair as it can be so that we can say to those who apply these security tests that they can be rigorously and vigorously employed because we have protected the individual, given him a fair hearing, and they can now go ahead and apply the policy as vigorously as they wish. I am not suggesting that any board be set up which would in itself make a decision. I am prepared to go along, at the moment at any rate, with the Prime Minister when he said on a former occasion that the ultimate decision as to whether a man is suitable must rest with the government. I am prepared to go along with the view that theirs is the responsibility; but I think there should be something in the nature of an intermediate board before which hearings could be held and to which a man would have an opportunity to state his case. That board could pass on its findings with respect to that hearing to the minister for his information at the time when he exercises his final decision.
That is the system which is followed in the United Kingdom. I hope I can make it very clear that I do not think that because it is done in the United Kingdom it has to be done here. It is not that at all. But I put this forward for consideration. The United Kingdom is, I should think, even more apt to feel the first Russian hydrogen bomb than we are. They are a lot closer and therefore they have just as much at stake in preserving the secrecy of secret information as we

545ft
have, and they seem to have been able to work out this procedure by which they feel they can protect their security interests and yet provide a method which will protect the sense of justice and fairness to the individual.
This method was evolved as long ago as 1948 when the Labour government was in power and, on the basis of the information I have been able to gather, I understand it is still being followed by the present government in the United Kingdom. I would therefore like to place on the record at some length a quotation from the British Hansard wherein Mr. Attlee outlined the procedure in a debate on March 25, 1948. He said, and this is to be found at columns 3421 to 3423 inclusive:
Suppose there Is a case in which there is room to suspect disloyalty. The first thing to be done is to see that the civil servant concerned is informed. He should not be merely informed that he is suspected, but should be given, as far as possible, chapter and verse, saying, "You are a member of this organization, you did this or that, can you explain it?" He ought to have the case put before him perfectly clearly. Secondly he must be given the opportunity of studying that case, and then given the opportunity of putting in his reply, and also of making his reply. That then goes before the departmental head, who must consider whether it is a matter in which action must be taken. He must then go to the minister, and, whatever we think of ministers, they have a pretty fair knowledge of psychology, as they have been in this house for some time. They will have a broad view; we have to take a broad view of these things. They will look at the whole of the evidence and consider whether or not there is a prima facie case for transferring this man on these grounds or, it may be, even for dismissing him.
Then we want something beyond the minister to assist him. We are, therefore, proposing a further safeguard. We are setting up an advisory body of three retired civil servants. I hope to give the names some time, and I am quite sure they will be names which will inspire confidence in the civil service. If the minister considers there is a prima facie case, he will send the whole of the evidence before this body. Before this body the person concerned will be able to appear and make his case. He will also be able to ask other people to speak for him. The whole of this will be sifted very carefully, wherever the information comes from, by this advisory body; and the advisory body will then send their advice to the minister. The minister will then have to decide on the whole of the case as to whether he takes their advice, or rejects their advice, or what action he proposes to take. That, I think, gives the opportunity people ought to have of stating their case.
Then the prime minister of Britain went on to say this, and this is a point that has been raised here, and I think he dealt with it fairly effectively:
It is quite impossible-and everyone will realize that it is

that we should give in detail exactly the sources of information. If we do that, we destroy anything like an effective security service. But it is our intention to do this with the greatest possible tenderness for the individual, consistent with the security of the community and, as I have said, the security of the fellow members of the civil service.
Supply-Justice
Then a little bit later in that same debate he was asked a question by Mr. Brown as follows:


Mr. W. J. Brown:: I wish to thank the prime minister for his statement, but I would like to ask whether it would be within the competence of the proposed advisory body of retired civil servants to send, not only for the papers that would be supplied, but also for the man himself?
The Prime Minister: I think that is quite clear. He would certainly appear.
Hence under that system-and I am not just saying it is a good system because it happens to be in effect there; I am saying that I think it is a good system because it does seem to protect the individual against possible injustice-the individual has the opportunity of knowing the nature of the case against him.
It may be that there was an unwise association in the past which has come to light. It may be that it is a perfectly innocent association. There may be a perfectly simple explanation for that association and one which-if the explanation were ever asked for or an opportunity afforded for it to be given -would satisfy the authorities that there is; no security risk here, that all that needs to be done is to draw to the attention of the person that this is an undesirable association and the matter will rest there. But in the case I have in mind there was no such opportunity to explain. One could also imagine other cases where there is a simple and satisfactory explanation which could be made were the basis of the suspicion known to the suspected person. I am convinced that under the present procedure followed here- indeed it has been stated that it is not the general practice to inform the civil servant that he is under suspicion or the reasons for the suspicion-in general there can be no opportunity of meeting the case afforded to the man who is suspected, however innocent he may be. I do not like to think that sort of principle and procedure is followed here in Canada. That is my point.
With respect to the type of appeal, or intermediate hearing and procedure-to which I have referred, and which is afforded in the United Kingdom, I believe that the nature of the case could be stated to the individual concerned without the revelation of any particular piece of information which would enable a genuinely disloyal person to trace and to break down the security system. I do not think facts and dates need necessarily be given with particularity nor need the source of the information be given. Indeed, in the United Kingdom Mr. Attlee made it clear that there must be limitations upon the right of the suspected person to know all the information. He referred to a number of

Supply-Justice
cases which were brought to his attention by the association over there which looks after civil service matters. He told them: I said at the outset that I did not mean that every piece of information, including the sources, in our possession, would be made available but rather an outline of the case with as much particularity as possible; and he repeated that what would be done was to inform the suspect of the nature of the case against him with as much particularity as possible having regard to the necessity to protect their own security system.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that system still in effect under the present British government?


Edmund Davie Fulton: My information is that the
same system is at present in effect. Indeed it was Mr. Butler who gave the latest figures as to the number of cases dealt with under that system and the results. I can see the reason for the doubts and for the care which would have to be exercised but I can see no insuperable obstacle to the implementation of a similar system here in Canada so that we can demand with confidence-and it is our duty to demand; it is the government's duty to discharge the responsibility-the most vigorous and effective enforcement of a policy of security, secure ourselves in the knowledge, as would be the government, that as far as it is humanly possible to ensure it, no individual is going to be unjustly prejudiced as a result of the application of that policy.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, without breaking the continuity of discussion that has taken place today, I should like to say just a word on this matter. I do so somewhat reluctantly after listening to the Prime Minister. I want to assure him that I believe when he was speaking every hon. member in this committee was conscious of the fact that he was doing so with conviction, with sincerity and with honesty of purpose in the discharge of the heavy responsibilities that rest upon him in these particular days. That is the way I felt, and I am sure every other hon. member of the committee will agree with me.
There is, however, a phase that I should like to take up this afternoon. There is no question about it that we are living in extremely tense times. We are living in days the like of which human history has never before witnessed. To my mind there are two realms in which the enemy of mankind is at work. One is in the realm of physics which in these days is expressing itself in the scientific realm, where there is a danger which is so great that it threatens the survival of the human race. That is one realm in which the enemy is at work.

There is another realm, the realm of the human mind and the human personality. In that respect I refer to what some of us hold as a very deep conviction, the basic freedom of individual man. The enemy is at work in both these fields, and living in such times as we do, witnessing the things that are happening in the world and at the highest possible level of world affairs, there is no question that anyone who is interested at all must be interested to the point of being alarmed. We read of investigations being carried on in other countries, particularly the United States. We cannot help but be influenced by the result of some of these investigations, and it would be inconceivable and the height of stupidity for anyone to conclude that the same espionage forces that have been at work there have forgotten all about Canada. They just have not. Yet when we ask about the matter, and I do not want to be too harsh, we are politely told that it is well in hand and that we must therefore trust the government.
I go a long way in trusting the government with such responsibility but I must confess that I do not know very much about the situation and I do not think I am different from any other hon. member. I must confess I should like to know something about it. I am not interested in some individual case here and there but I am certainly interested in the methods that are being pursued. I do not know if it was news to other hon. members but it was news to me that the Secretary of State was the chairman of that security panel. I doubt whether anyone knew that. We are told that to reveal any steps that are being taken might possibly incriminate some innocent person. I have the greatest sympathy for those who are attempting to manage the affairs of the country and who do not wish to cast any reflection upon the character or integrity of any person. I think everybody in the house sympathizes with that position, but just the same I do believe that in many cases it can be used as a sort of red herring drawn across the trail, a red herring which is sometimes labelled "guilt by association".
I realize there is a principle involved there and that the greatest of care must be taken. I call it a red herring because I believe that is exactly what it is. I do not know of anyone who has actually been declared to be guilty of anything just because he piay have been friendly with a person who was vitally involved. Nevertheless there is a principle, and I think the principle is largely one of personal responsibility. I can think of it in a rather light vein. I am a clergyman by

ordinary profession. I have to watch my step. If I went downtown and were seen entering a pub I might be able to come out and tell one of my elders whom I met on the street that I went in to see a man.


An hon. Member:: You might not be able to come out.


Ernest George Hansell: I might be able to argue that I was in there trying to convert men from the errors of their ways. However, if 1 were seen going in there regularly I might not be guilty of anything but I could not very well blame my board of elders if they asked for my resignation. After all, much of it boils down to personal responsibility, and sometimes steps have to be taken. Just the other day I was reading about the decision made by the board of men directed, I believe, by the President of the United States, to investigate the case of Dr. Oppenheimer. We all know the result. Dr. Oppenheimer, one of the greatest scientists of the day, from now on is denied secret information. Yet the board came out with the clear-cut statement that they believed that Dr. Oppenheimer was a loyal citizen of the United States. I believe he is.
Not long ago I talked to a gentleman whose name I cannot tell you because he spoke to me in confidence, a man who had rubbed elbows with some of these great scientists. He said that clearly they live in a different world from us. He said that he can quite understand how in their associations they may come in contact with people who may be part of an espionage ring and yet they will not recognize it at all. Be that as it may, sometimes steps have to be taken because after all in these days we are not dealing merely with a man's position or job but with the possibility of the survival of the human race. We are dealing with the greatest of all fundamental freedoms, the freedom of individual man.
The system of espionage that is being used by the Russians, the enemies of our way of life, is so inconceivable and so fantastic that it pushes the wildest spy fiction of my teenage days completely into the background. That is why I say it is not merely a matter of somebody running off with some secrets or pilfering a diplomatic bag, it is a question of a system that has been devised to so permeate our way of life as to be able to engineer men of the highest possible intellectual calibre into positions at the highest level where those men have actually influenced government policy. There is no question about that.
I only have to refer to the person of Harry Dexter White, who became assistant treas-
Supply-Justice
urer of the United States. He had a tremendous power that affected the economic destinies of the nation. There is no question in my mind but that the debauching of the currency of China was part of a scheme. While I cannot put my finger on any particular spot, there is no question in my mind but that the same evil powers had designs on wrecking the United Kingdom economy. I must say it is only because of the integrity and stamina of the English-speaking people, and their leadership through the times, that they have been able to come through and apparently come out on top.
It is this matter of the influencing of government policy at the highest level that is significant to my way of thinking. I have a newspaper clipping here. I am sorry I cannot give the date of it, but it cannot be very long ago because I never keep these clippings too long. I believe I clipped it from a paper giving a summary of the news, and the heading is, "U.S. Reds Strong, F.B.I. Chief says." It goes on to say:
The United States communist party has "strong fifth column strength", federal bureau of investigation director J. Edgar Hoover has told the House of Representatives appropriations committee.
Hoover's comments to the committee-which was considering F.B.I. estimates for the coming fiscal year-were made recently in private. They were released February 6.
Hoover listed the following as objectives of the American communist party:
Settlement of the Korean war; recall of American troops from abroad: a five-power peace pact including communist China: resumption of U.S. trade with iron curtain nations.
Let us make note of the last point. It is the matter of influencing of government policy, which policy is tied in with the destiny of the nation, that gives some of us extreme concern.
In another debate yesterday I referred to a recent report that has been made by the commission set up by the Australian government to look into the Petrov case. I have here a news dispatch, which I suppose all hon. members have read dated May 18, I believe, giving an analysis of that somewhat preliminary report. I am not going to read a great deal of it, but I should like to read a part of it. It says:
Petrov and his agents painstakingly collected details about the personal lives of various persons and sent them to Moscow. The dockets included their relations with women, their drinking habits, whether they were short of money, whether they could be inveigled into talking, and their political leanings.
Other scandalous material became known about Australians' private lives, this was held for its blackmail value-to put the heat on those who might become involved directly or indirectly with the soviet intelligence system.



S462 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-J ustice
The MVD sought its recruits usually among junior civil service employees, government clerks and sometimes newspaper reporters who might have off-the-record information.
Persons whom the Russians considered "soft" were:
1.	Australians already converted to the socialistic theories of Karl Marx.
2.	People whose vanity could be appealed to.
3.	People who had "a desire to do what they thought to be important".
Once they agreed to do some task for Russia, they found themselves increasingly obligated-and the blackmail material became increasingly effective.
I could read on, but the report is there for anyone to read. It is not, therefore, merely a matter of the stealing of secrets involved in nuclear energy or something of that kind. It is more than that. They work upon human nature. There is not a person living v/hose personality or whose human nature has no chinks through which he could be reached in some or any of these ways which are so cleverly and subtly designed. It is for that reason we have to be so very careful.
I am not going to repeat the request of the hon. member for Kamloops. I shall have another suggestion to make about that, but I believe the Prime Minister should tell us something about the activities of the R.C.M.P., the organization charged with dealing with communism in Canada. I have a report here of April 29, 1954. I suppose the minister has read it. In an interview a former member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police stated that there are between 8,000 and 9,000 card-bearing communists in Canada at present, and when sympathizers and fellow travellers are counted the total might exceed 50,000. The point I wanted to make was that he said there were schools inaugurated and being carried on throughout Canada, and that the leaders in some of these schools are trained in Moscow. The article reads as follows:
The national school was held annually at a location about 100 miles from Toronto, he said. Provincial schools were held several times a year to Indoctrinate new members. The party also operated a summer school each year at Sylvan lake in Alberta.
In addition there were local study groups and schools for adults and children in Montreal, Ottawa, Windsor, Toronto and Winnipeg, as well as other centres. Toronto was headquarters for the largest organized groups but Winnipeg for years had been the centre for a "virile" communist organization.
These are local study groups and schools for adults and children. I believe we should have some sort of report about that from the minister, since his estimates are before us.
I do not want to keep the house any longer, Mr. Chairman, but the Prime Minister must not feel too badly if there is an indication from many members of their extreme concern about this, shall I say,
IMr. Hansell.]
philosophical espionage system in Canada that attempts to capture the minds of men towards their philosophy, and lead Canada astray in respect to its highest level policy making.
That is what I am personally concerned about. Because once it is done you cannot retreat from your position. I do not know how long our present government is going to be in office, but one thing is certain: They are on their way out, because that is the only way they can go.
Walter Edward Harris: And that is the only reason you can give.


Ernest George Hansell: And some other responsible leaders are going to take their place. When I go through the country I say to the people, "I am not going to be too harsh on the Liberal government, but it has to be changed some time. You do not suppose there is going to be a Liberal government here a hundred years from now, do you"?


Walter Edward Harris: Could be.


Ernest George Hansell: There just is not going to be; we might as well recognize that.


Mr. Pearson:: New faces, perhaps.


Ernest George Hansell: I am saying that one government builds upon another. The work of one government cannot always be retrieved. It is not just a matter of coming here for a session of parliament, getting up and talking, drawing our pay and going home. We represent the people, and our responsibility is toward the destiny of this nation. Is the nation going to follow the line of least resistance, or are we going to emerge a virile nation, a God-fearing nation of men and women with honesty and integrity of purpose, a nation as free as God intended men should be, when He created them in the likeness of His own image?


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, under this vote I, too, desire to discuss a phase of security, a phase slightly different from that which has been under discussion for several hours. I do not know just how far the Minister of Justice can go in answering what I have in mind, but I sincerely hope he will go as far as possible in removing some of the confusion which exists in the minds of many people in Canada, and which I can say definitely exists at the moment in my own mind.
I shall introduce what I have to say in this way: A few years ago I had read of a nationally-known communist in eastern Canada. Being nationally-known he held a pretty high position in the communist organization. I gather that to get to a high position in a communist organization one has to

be dogmatic, a strict follower of the party line, something of a rabble-rouser, and definitely a revolutionary in their sense of the term. This man resigned in 1953 from the communist party and received a great deal of publicity throughout the length and breadth of this country in the press. I have been interested in having brought to my attention by a number of people remarks he made this year in the province of Quebec at a public meeting. I am referring to a man named Pat Walsh. The Quebec daily newspaper, L'Action Catholique, in its issue of Tuesday, January 26, quoted Mr. Walsh as follows:
I believe the time has come for me to reveal that when I took part in communist manifestations or when I was connected with communist organizations I was secretly working for the Department of Justice in Ottawa. At the time of my public resignation in February 1953 I had agreed with the authorities of the Department of Justice not to reveal this fact in order not to compromise the secret work of other agents inside the communist organizations. But today circumstances have changed and 1 have decided to reveal the fact that in reality I have always been a secret agent working for the central power.
I have taken this matter up with the Department of Justice. It is my understanding that it is the policy of the department when statements of this kind are made that neither the department nor the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will declare whether or not they are true. If that is so, perhaps there is a good explanation for it which, I am sure, the minister will give. If it is so, then I think first of all there is danger in allowing men with the past record and reputation of this man to make statements of that kind. I believe there is a danger there.
But my second point is perhaps more important, that if the information is correct, has consideration been given to whether or not a wrong policy is being followed in this matter of security, as it is related to a knowledge of communist activities? I can clearly and completely understand why, for purposes of security, the Department of Justice would like to have men placed in what they consider to be subversive organizations, to find out what is going on. Undoubtedly they have such men; the case of Sergeant Leopold proves that conclusively.
However, to reach the position of national importance in the communist organization in this country one would have to prove himself a good communist. He would have to persuade people in the Dominion of Canada to change their loyalty from this country to another, to accept a party and policy line from outside this country. In other words, to reach a position of that kind, you would have to be a successful evangelist of communism, and convert the democratic people of Canada to
Supply-Justice
communism. If it is correct that he was an agent of the federal department, then the government itself was employing a man to do the very thing we want to overthrow.
To me the whole situation is intriguing and at the same time confusing. It is a point upon which we should be given some clarification, and within the realm of security the minister should go as far as possible to inform us in the matter. Here we have a statement made by a man known formally as an avowed communist that he was at all times an agent of the Department of Justice. No denial is forthcoming, and we are told it cannot be forthcoming. Yet in the same month, in an issue of the Globe and Mail of January 13, we read about a man named Captain J. H. De Graff, allegedly a former Russian and British espionage agent.
In this report the R.C.M.P. are quoted as saying-and this is in quotation marks-that Captain De Graff is the genuine article; that he is a big operator, and that he served for three years in Montreal with the R.C.M.P. who knew him simply as Captain Johnny X. Here is a statement from the R.C.M.P. that another man was for three years working with the department as a secret service operator. Now that can be correct or incorrect, or perhaps the R.C.M.P. never made any such statement, although it is in quotation marks in the newspaper column. But it has never been denied, as far as I know, nor have the R.C.M.P. stated that they never made any such statement.
In one case there is no denial that they ever said this man was a secret service agent. Therefore he can get away with the statement the same as a former communist can get away with it when he makes a public speech in the province of Quebec. I think, sir, you cannot put both of them together and make them coincide. There must be some basis of policy as far as the Department of Justice is concerned in cases like this; and in view of the fact we have in one month two different men making this claim, it is of some importance and should be considered.
If possible I should like to hear from the minister just what is the policy as far as statements by his department or by the R.C.M.P. are concerned, on statements of this nature, and also what is the policy as regards the production of information or the production of files? Is there any, or has there been a definite policy, or is it strictly a matter of expediency under the circumstances of the case? Perhaps it might even go to political purposes. I am not saying anything about the actions of my hon. friend but I do know that in the past it was most difficult to understand the policy operations of the R.C.M.P.

Supply-Justice
I can very well remember, Mr. Chairman, when Canada was at war with Japan, the Japanese Canadians were moved off the Pacific coast. There were certain activities, commissions and advisory boards in British Columbia on this matter of the Japanese. A great many felt that there was one man in British Columbia who, instead of being left fairly loose just outside Lillooet, I think it was at Minto, should have been interned because the feeling there amongst the Japanese was that he had his loyalty in Japan, that he was a member of a national organization in Japan, that he was the British Columbia representative. The feeling and the pressure got to the point where the federal government made an investigation.
A learned judge was appointed to make the inquiry. I appeared, sir, before that inquiry on the stand and under oath. Why was I called? Because I had in my possession two copies of a newspaper that was printed in Japan in which this man's photograph appeared, and there was a write-up on him. These two papers were what we would term fascist organs; they were the official organs of a fascist national organization in Japan. I had these two magazines translated, and so I was called about the actual newspapers and the translation. At that inquiry it was asked whether the R.C.M.P. would produce their file on this man. Their file was of interest, and an inquiry was sent to the Department of Justice. The answer came back that the R.C.M.P. did not have the authority and could not get the authority for the production of this file. So, there was a file asked for from the R.C.M.P. on a matter that was being investigated, and it was denied. Nobody asked to produce any file on me but the counsel of the commission produced the secret service reports on me without being asked. That was the first time I knew I was being dogged and my utterances were being taken down by an agent of the R.C.M.P., and it was produced in that inquiry. Not that I am ashamed of anything I say at any time, and they can dog me all they like and they can take down every word I say and it will not bother me one bit. I do not take off my hat in this House of Commons to any man or woman or to any man or woman in Canada in my love of and loyalty to this Dominion of Canada.
What I am speaking about is this matter of production of files and giving of information. I think, sir, on this phase I have said enough. The minister understands the confusion and disturbance about it. If there can oe a clear and explicit explanation of matters of this nature, as well as of matters that were raised by previous speakers, it will mean a great deal, it will be of great benefit

to all the people in the Dominion of Canada, because knowledge is a lot better than lack of knowledge or guessing or rumour.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, we are interested readers here of my hon. friend's very excellent column in the Vancouver Province.


Harold Edward Winch: I guessed that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: And as he was good enough in his column in the issue of Saturday, March 20, 1954, to give us quite an effective notice of motion of the matter that he was going to bring up today I was able, by reason of that fact, to ask the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for a report upon all the major relevant allegations that were contained in this newspaper column. But before I deal point by point with these allegations, let me say a word with regard to the general policy which is followed by the special branch of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police engaged in counter-espionage work.
I am sure that I do not need to explain in any great detail to the members of such a well-informed body as the House of Commons that counter-espionage is scarcely the exact equivalent of conducting a Sunday school class, and that the R.C.M.P. special branch necessarily employs from time to time those whom it thinks will serve its particular purposes. I am sure, moreover, that the members upon the least reflection will agree with us that it would be a grave error indeed to discuss here any of our activities in the special branch, and especially to admit or deny any allegations of sometimes irresponsible people claiming to have been in our employ.
We are all aware that the practice of espionage and counter-espionage, the contest between enemy nations to secure and to prevent the securing of intelligence involves the building up, as completely as possible, of a large mass of information; and oftentimes the answer in the affirmative or negative to some simple statement of fact may be the last item needed to complete the general pattern of, if I may use that figure of speech, the jig-saw puzzle which the intelligence department is trying to put together; and this last simple answer may finally determine what that whole pattern is.
In counter-espionage work there is therefore only one safe policy to follow, and that is the policy of complete reticence about our own counter-espionage and complete reticence in respect of the espionage against which we are trying to protect Canada. It is for that reason that we have consistently refused to say anything with regard to the allegations of gentlemen like Mr. Pat Walsh. I

must confess that when I read my hon. friend's column, the one in question to which 1 have just referred, I was a little taken aback by his allegation that we had departed from that policy in the Captain De Graff case, though I was very gratified when he said at the conclusion of his remarks concerning the Pat Walsh matter, and I quote from him, "that if this case stood alone the position of the Minister of Justice is quite understandable." I gather from his whole column that the part that was not so understandable to him was that we should take the position we did in connection with the Pat Walsh matter, and then in the Captain De Graff case we should make revelations or comments.
Now, the report which I get from the R.C.M.P. on the Captain De Graff case and which I submit to members of this house as being accurate is to the following effect, as are all the reports which I receive from the force.
My hon. friend from Vancouver East referred to newspaper reports in which the R.C.M.P. is alleged to have described Captain De Graff as "the genuine article" and further "he was for three years in regular duty in Montreal with the R.C.M.P." Hence my hon. friend charges the Department of Justice with giving information about a secret agent in this case while refusing it in the Walsh case.
Now, Mr. Chairman, to show that there has been no inconsistency in principle I think it is necessary to begin with to recapitulate the substance of information which I have already conveyed verbally to my hon. friend from Vancouver East, to the effect that Captain De Graff as long ago as 1951 began making public appearances under cover of the name of "Captain X", and received a certain amount of newspaper publicity for these appearances in which he described his work in the Russian and British intelligence services. We conceded that Captain De Graff was undoubtedly a man of considerable knowledge in this field. During this period beginning 1951 the R.C.M.P. was asked on many occasions to give some indication of the authenticity of his background, that is the authenticity of the background he had been claiming for himself. This the police consistently declined to do until Captain De Graff last January, as reported in the Ottawa Journal, January 12, voluntarily disclosed his true identity.
At that time the press again sought some indication from the police about Captain De Graff's reliability. I think it is important that I should emphasize that. What the press sought was some indication from the police S3276-346
Supply-J ustice
as to Captain De Graff's reliability as an expert in the field of secret intelligence work. Undoubtedly the press wished to reassure themselves that he was not an impostor. At that time the press was told in general terms that Captain De Graff did have a background of successful work in secret intelligence, but this comment referred only to his activities before his arrival in Canada, activities in which, as I indicated a moment ago, he had been claiming association with the Russian and British intelligence services.
So far as the commissioner has been able to discover, no spokesman at R.C.M.P. headquarters used the phrase which I think my hon. friend has used, namely, "the genuine article".


Harold Edward Winch: I was referring to the comment in the newspaper column.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I quite agree: What I am saying is that we did not use the phrase my hon. friend quoted from the newspaper column. In other words, the R.C.M.P. was not the source of the items in the newspaper columns to the effect that Captain De Graff was "the genuine article".
As to Captain De Graff's possible relations with the R.C.M.P., the public interest requires us to continue to maintain a policy that such matters are never publicly disclosed even if a person claims, as did Captain De Graff, and as Pat Walsh made claim, to have been a secret agent of the R.C.M.P., even when such a claim may have a surface appearance of truth.
I think it will be readily appreciated by all of us that any official confirmation by the police acknowledging such a relationship would have a direct and adverse effect upon Canadian interests. Moreover, inasmuch as the Prime Minister has stated today that we work in security matters with the security agents of our partner nations in NATO, for us to make statements of this sort would destroy that confidence in our reliability which these other nations must continue to have if there is going to be that degree of co-operation between our efforts that there should be.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I submit that our policy in these two cases has been quite consistent in that we have neither confirmed nor denied the statements attributed to Pat Walsh and to Captain De Graff that they were secret agents of the R.C.M.P.
Now, with regard to another matter-and I hope my hon. friend from Vancouver East will forgive me if I mispronounce a Japanese name-in the Morii case my hon. friend will recall his reference to the proceedings of the royal commission which was set up in

Supply-Justice
October 1942 under Mr. Justice J. C. A. Cameron of the exchequer court to inquire into a report of an allegation published in the Vancouver News-Herald to the effect that a black dragon society was active among the Japanese in British Columbia; and that one Etsuji Morii was connected with that society, and that the R.C.M.P. had been "complacent" in dealing with this gentleman. These newspaper articles particularly claimed that the force had been at fault in accepting this gentleman's services in arranging for evacuation of persons of Japanese descent from the west coast.
I think I should here insert parenthetically that the royal commission's report disposed of all these allegations as being unfounded, and described in detail the useful work of this gentleman for the Japanese community, for the Canadian government and for the R.C.M.P. with respect to this evacuation.
My hon. friend's article stated that the R.C.M.P. file on Morii was asked for by counsel of the Vancouver News-Herald and production of it was denied. My hon. friend from Vancouver East is quite correct in this statement. By telegram dated November 13, 1942, to the counsel for the R.C.M.P., former commissioner Wood wired as follows:
It is not considered in public interest nor has it been policy in past to produce confidential files as in case of Morii where frequent references are made to information received from secret service of other countries and thus lead to disclosure of identity of confidential informants (stop) Such action would be violation of undertaking given secret service of other countries.
That is in line with what I have stated to be our consistent policy and the policy which we have followed in the cases of Pat Walsh and Captain De Graff.
But my hon. friend's article goes on to allege a serious inconsistency in that, in spite of the rule with regard to the production of these files, a police file on my hon. friend himself was introduced as he says before the commission. My hon. friend's paragraph to this effect in his article is in these words:
Without any warning and without any request being made to counsel the federal government produced the R.C.M.P. file on myself. As a matter of fact, from this file they read into the record R.C.M.P. verbatim reports from the speeches I had made.
I regarded this as a rather serious affair- the allegation that we would not produce a file in one case and that we would produce a file on my hon. friend and read from such files speeches of his into the record of the royal commission. I therefore instructed that a careful search should be made of the proceedings of the royal commission. A search was made of all of the proceedings conducted

under Mr. Justice Cameron and also a search of his report to the then minister of justice. I must say, Mr. Chairman-and I say it with some embarrassment; I do not like to contradict my hon. friend from Vancouver East- that the fact is that there is no record whatever in either the proceedings or the commissioner's report that such a file was ever produced at that inquiry and much less that it was read into the record.


Harold Edward Winch: I can still remember the questioning.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is perhaps confusing the production of that report which did not take place and which was not read into the record with another episode. He may have recalled that a Sergeant J. K. Barnes, at that time head of the R.C.M.P. intelligence section at Vancouver, had stated in his testimony that my hon. friend as a member of an advisory board established by the government to give assistance to the security commission of the British Columbia government with regard to the evacuation of Japanese was permitted to address a group of Japanese who had complained about the treatment they were receiving from the R.C.M.P. My hon. friend was accompanied on that occasion by another member of the force, Constable Turner, who heard my hon. friend say, and so reported to Sergeant Barnes certain statements, which statements may have been the ones to which I think my hon. friend refers. But there was no report as my hon. friend alleges.
I hope that all of this will convince my hon. friend that there is some fairly substantial measure of consistency in the policy that we follow in this regard. I have always understood him to agree with us-and I hope he will correct me if I misunderstand him-that in the operation of a special branch or of any secret service activity there is only one policy that can be followed and that is complete reticence and complete non-production of files.
While I am on my feet I might perhaps refer to a matter which was raised by the hon. member for Macleod in quoting former superintendent Leopold with regard to the number of communists-that is the actual card-carrying members of the party-in Canada at the present time and also as to the number of fellow travellers or supporters of the communist party line. The figures my friend the hon. member for Macleod gave were between 8,000 and 9,000 for card-carrying members and 50,000 for the fellow travellers.
I might now point up that information by laying before the members of the committee

the fact that at the time former superintendent Leopold retired in July, 1952, he indicated at a press interview which had been arranged for him by the R.C.M.P. that he intended to continue his activities against the communists but in his new capacity as a private citizen. As would obviously be the case, the reports of this interview received considerable publicity. I should like to refer to the account of it which was given by the Canadian Press for July 30, 1952, in which Mr. Leopold indicated the intention to which I have just referred. In that interview Mr. Leopold gave with approval his estimate of the strength of the communist party in Canada as being from 8,000 to 9,000 card-carrying members. Mr. Leopold's statement reflected, of course, his own personal opinion which, it should be allowed, was based upon a considerable amount of official knowledge and experience. However, it did not necessarily coincide exactly with the official estimates; for at that time, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police special branch was engaged in one of its periodical assessments of party strength and official figures were in process of revision.
I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that the figure given by superintendent Leopold on that occasion is much the same as that which I understood my friend the hon. member for Macleod to state as being the number of card-carrying members in Mr. Leopold's opinion just the other day. With regard to the number of fellow travellers, the figure that the hon. member for Macleod mentioned was 50,000. That figure cannot be too far wrong because the number of votes cast for Labour-Progressive candidates in the last general election was 63,000.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I propose to raise a new subject. On this item we have been dealing with different matters and then perhaps returning to them. Before I proceed to deal with that subject, however, I simply want to make a few observations with regard to the subject which was discussed earlier by the hon. member for Kamloops and, following him, by the Prime Minister. In the discussion with regard to what is described as security within the civil service, I think there will be general agreement that it presents an extremely difficult problem. I think every one of us will recognize that there must be a great many cases in which the very nature of the employment is such that it is difficult to apply ordinary standards. Nevertheless, the thing which is causing great concern to some of us, as has been mentioned before, is the fact that, in answer to the demand that has been made on a number of occasions that the actual activity of working in support of the recognized communist party that is under the direction of Moscow should in some 83276-346J
Supply-Justice
way be defined, we have been told that a satisfactory definition cannot be given and that this might invade the realm of freedom of thought and freedom of speech. That being the case, it is extremely difficult for us to understand how something that cannot be defined in one case can be defined in the other.
Those cases which certainly arouse the greatest concern in my mind are the cases where a person is discharged or dismissed because of the allegation that he either is a communist or is sympathetic to communism. In the case mentioned by the Prime Minister, where it was decided not to permit the national film board to make certain films for the Department of National Defence, on security grounds, we know that it was quite1 clearly stated that the question of communism and communist sympathy was behind that concern. The difficulty here is that something that cannot be stated as a law in one case to create a penalty, according to the government, is used as a basis for denying the right to work in another case. Also we find that contrary to the procedure at Westminster there is no stated case placed before the civil servant concerned nor even a digest of the case in a great many instances. They are simply confronted with the fact that the finding has been made.
What it really amounts to is that we do not know what the law is and we do not know who the judges are. We neither know what definition applies nor do we know who apply that definition. Surely at a time that the rule of law is in itself one of the great issues dividing people between the free and the enslaved, we should seek on every possible occasion to err, if anything, on the side of the rule of law. I simply close my observations in this respect by asking once again that the government consider the possibility of at least an understandable definition of what the offence of communist activity or communist sympathy is which will deny a civil servant the right of employment, and I also support the arguments so ably presented by the hon. member for Kamloops that we should know who in fact are exercising this very great power in relation to many people who are carrying on duties which carry with them responsibilities and also a certain assurance of continuity of employment which is a little different from the ordinary type of employment that we would normally discuss.
Having made these observations on this subject, I wish to proceed to a subject which I raised before. It is one that I think is of very great importance at a time when freedom of the press and freedom of speech

Supply-J ustice
generally are so much in our minds. I am not dealing with this subject by way of proposal for amendment of the Criminal Code or otherwise. I wish to deal with the law as it applies to contempt of court proceedings and make certain suggestions which I hope the minister will take under consideration and then decide what can be done to deal with this aspect of a problem that has been presented to us by certain recent occurrences.
The proceedings in relation to what is described as contempt of court are in many respects today amongst the most unsatisfactory and unusual in Canadian jurisprudence. It is in fact a carry-over of ancient law. The power of judges to commit for contempt is an old common law practice. As far as Canada is concerned, we have simply inherited the statute law on this subject which goes back over a period of almost one thousand years of legal history. The British common law is part of the law of Canada except to the extent that it has been modified either by statutes of the parliament of Canada, provincial statutes, or both.
The fact is that there are at least seven sections set out in the index of the Criminal Code that deal with contempt of court, sections 165, 180, 607, 608, 678, 841 and 975. I am referring now of course to the numbers of sections in the code that has been the law for some time. Section 165 is the general section providing a penalty in the case of disobedience of orders of the court. That brings us to the fact that there are two distinct types of contempt of court. There is contempt of court which is in fact disobedience of some court order such as refusal to comply with a definite order of the court, the refusal of a witness to answer questions, or some similar disobedience of the orders of the court made under these various powers.
The second branch of this question relates to contempt outside of the court which is deemed to have some bearing on court proceedings. It is in this field that the great difficulty arises, and particularly with regard to contempt of court proceedings taken against publishers of newspapers, magazines or books and the writers of the material in those publications. Without in any way questioning the necessity for appropriate measures to enforce compliance with orders of the court, and above all for adequate protection of those who are appearing before the courts in criminal proceedings, I submit that the necessity for a clear definition of contempt of court has been given a new and somewhat dramatic emphasis by what has happened within the past few weeks.
I had occasion to refer not long ago to the warning issued by Sir Albert Walsh, chief

justice of Newfoundland, on May 18. That was a blanket warning to all residents of Newfoundland that any comments about a case then before the court against a man named Valdmanis might be regarded as contempt of court. I can find no precedent for a shotgun blast of that kind. The point with which I am greatly concerned is that a general warning of this kind that any reference to the proceedings then before the court might be interpreted as contempt of court may in fact throw a blanket of secrecy around the proceedings, which is wholly inconsistent with our concept of open, public and free trial.
Secret trials and star chamber procedure have for a very long time been regarded as inexcusable within this and other nations of the commonwealth, and we should be very careful that, no matter how good the intentions are, we should be on our guard to prevent anything creeping into our jurisprudence which would deny the completely free discussion, within proper bounds, of matters which are of concern to the people. An open trial means not only the presence of other people in court. It means not only the right of newspapers to inform others about what is happening in court. It means also the proper and legitimate discussion of the trial so that the public generally may know what is going on and what is happening under our legal system. It must be remembered that one of the things asserted over and over again is the statement that criminal punishment is perhaps intended not so much to visit a penalty upon the individual as to offer an example to others which will be a deterrent against a repetition of a similar crime.
There is a great deal of discussion at the moment about the very unpleasant details of hanging. Not one of us likes to contemplate that part of our legal procedure. However, we have been told for a very long time that it is not the thought of inflicting the death penalty upon a person guilty of murder that is so important in these proceedings as the warning it may offer to others of the penalty that follows murder or conduct of that kind. There must also certainly be an advantage to society in knowing the nature of things that will bring penalties; that is a natural consequence of one aspect of publicity in the press and over the radio. There is also the fact that the accused has an opportunity to have his case presented as well. If there were general objection to what took place then, while it might perhaps not be possible to have that public sentiment produce any satisfactory results immediately in relation to that individual, it is possible that this

expression of public sentiment will subsequently be interpreted in new laws which will follow the general development of advancement and improvement in our society.
Someone may ask why we should be so concerned about that here. This is the place, Mr. Chairman, where these things should be considered because the judges are simply called upon to interpret the laws that are passed here, in the provincial legislatures or, in their own local sphere of responsibility, by municipal councils. It is our responsibility particularly to correct anything that, by public evidence, is found to be unsatisfactory. I believe it is important that we have before us another recent case which brings this whole situation into clear focus where, in effect, a penalty was imposed as a result of what was stated to be contempt of court. I refer to the contempt of court proceedings in the Balcombe case, recently tried in Cornwall by the chief justice of Ontario, Chief Justice McRuer.
On that occasion the chief justice brought before the court certain people responsible for the sale and distribution of magazines that had referred in advance to the circumstances connected with this trial. As will be recalled, one man against whom the penalty was imposed, amongst others, was a man named Bryan. Following that the chief justice reviewed the case and changed the penalty that had been imposed. A question was raised by the hon. member for Prince Albert, and the Minister of Justice obtained a statement from Chief Justice McRuer which was placed on the record. This statement was in the third person, and appears at page 2621 of Hansard for March 3, 1954. I quote what the chief justice had to say concerning the power under which he acted in this particular case and also the power under which he reviewed the case and changed the penalty.
The matter was brought before the court by an application made by Mr. Kelly, the counsel for the accused Balcombe in the case of Regina v. Balcombe, and the material upon which the order was based was placed before Chief Justice McRuer on this application. The chief justice, exercising the inherent power vested in a judge of a court of superior jurisdiction, directed that the publishers and the distributor in the Cornwall area should be brought before the court to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt of court. In imposing the penalty. Chief Justice McRuer exercised the inherent power vested in a judge of any court of superior jurisdiction in a matter of this character, and likewise the chief justice in remitting part of Mr. Bryan's sentence, exercised an inherent power that is vested in a judge who imposes such a sentence when he considers that the service of part of the sentence may have sufficiently purged the contempt of the prisoner.
Supply-Justice
In that case the chief justice was simply saying this: As a judge, I have acted under the inherent power conferred upon a judge of the superior court. It is for me to decide what will constitute contempt, and it is for me to decide the penalty. Also inherent within my power as a judge of the superior court is the right to review and to decide that the penalty should be changed if that should be my opinion. It seems to me that this statement by the chief justice, to which I take no exception as an accurate interpretation of the situation as it stands, does emphasize the very loose and undefined position of publishers and others who may be called upon to distribute publications throughout Canada, and the danger in which any publisher may be under such a broad warning as that now given by the chief justice of Newfoundland.
It seems to me that these two statements brought together emphasize as never before the need for a definition of contempt of court outside of the court, and particularly contempt of court such as would constitute grounds for proceedings against a publisher or someone distributing the publication. Since the contempt of court proceedings in the Balcombe case were in regard to publications from the United States, which had been distributed and sold here, that emphasizes the fact that publishers of periodicals or newspapers in Canada with a wide circulation may be responsible in any provincial jurisdiction for what may happen there, according to the interpretation placed upon the meaning of contempt of court by any judge of a superior court of any of the provinces. Surely, that is too vague and uncertain a position when we speak with pride of the freedom of the press. It is not only the right of the press to speak with freedom about their opinions. Surely there can be no case where freedom of the press can be more important in its ultimate effect than the proper discussion of proceedings in court, where the subsequent security of the individual may depend upon the extent of the information conveyed through the press, which will bring the necessary reforms-if reforms should take place.
The law on this subject has a long history -a history going back to antiquity. In recent years however the statement in one case has been quoted over and over again with satisfaction by judges who have dealt with this matter in jurisdictions where there is an appropriate appeal.
In Great Britain the case which has been quoted most frequently, and with satisfaction, by other judges in other cases since that time, is that of Regina v. Payne and Cooper

Supply-Justice
(1896), 1 Queen's Bench, at page 557. In this report we find the following statement:
The applicant must show that something has been published which either is clearly intended, or at least is calculated, to prejudice a trial which is pending.
Mr. Chairman, if that were the test of contempt of court as it related to a statement published in the press, then there have been cases here in Canada where a penalty for contempt of court has been imposed in which it could not, in fact, have been imposed under this interpretation. It will be found that the statement in Regina v. Payne and Cooper was quoted with satisfaction in one of the leading cases on this subject in 1936 by Mr. Justice Du Parcq in the case of ex parte Gaskell and Chambers Limited (1936), 2 King's Bench, at page 595. At that time ithe subject under discussion was the very question that was raised in Newfoundland as to the publication of civil proceedings at a time when criminal proceedings are under way.
In that case the quotation I have just given from Regina v. Payne and Cooper was quoted with satisfaction, and a motion to commit was dismissed on the ground that the applicant did not show these requirements.
I mention that for this reason, that it has almost come to be taken as a definition of the condition that must be met, if an applicant is to succeed in seeking to have a penalty imposed for the publication of something in connection with a pending trial.
I know that there is under consideration at the present time a provision for an appeal in contempt cases. This is contained in the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code. I would point out however that this relates only to the right of appeal, and not to a definition.
When I raised this matter a few days ago the Minister of Justice spoke of the fact that this is something of primary concern to the provinces-to the provincial governments and legislatures-because of the exclusive provincial jurisdiction over the administration of justice. I submit that this is something definitely under the jurisdiction of this parliament, because what has come down to us as an inherent right of the courts is something clearly in the nature of criminal proceedings, because it is declared to be an offence by a judge, and a penalty is imposed.
I submit that the fact that contempt of court is within the jurisdiction of this parliament is demonstrated beyond question by the fact that we now have seven sections of the Criminal Code specifically declaring
IMr. Drew.]
certain cases where conduct of a particular kind will be held to be contempt; and a penalty is provided. If it was appropriate for this parliament to create penalties for refusal to do certain things within the courts, where the administration of justice is under provincial jurisdiction, then surely it is equally appropriate to define this type of contempt of court where there is an offence and where a penalty is imposed.
May I point out that there are a number of cases where the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces in a particular field has not been accepted as a reason for not dealing with it by the parliament of Canada, where there has been something of a criminal or quasicriminal nature which called for the imposition of a penalty of such a nature as would apply to a criminal offence. And, just to give one example, I would refer to those sections in the existing Criminal Code dealing with unlawful acts in restraint of trade. Those are sections 498, 498A and 499. Surely in the ordinary course of events trade would come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial governments and legislatures under property and civil rights. The fact, however, that a penalty has to be imposed for certain acts that are to be described as offences was regarded as sufficient ground for dealing with that matter under the sections to which I have referred. And there are other statutory provisions which follow the same course.
It must be remembered that no suggestion of any allegation of impropriety against any judge is contained in a discussion of this subject and in the argument that the present proceedings are unsatisfactory and that any statement by any judge may in itself constitute a possible limitation of freedom of the press or freedom of the individual. We should remember at all times that our responsibility is to pass laws, and that the responsibility of the judges is to interpret those laws and to impose penalties.
The actual procedure of those courts is defined by provincial laws which state how courts will be carried on. The judges within those laws that describe the administration of justice, and under the many statutes of this parliament, of the provincial legislatures, and of the municipal councils in their local fields, must observe those laws and give evenhanded justice in relation to those who may be brought before them in connection with any of those laws. It is our responsibility and not the responsibility of the judge to make new laws. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the combination of these two statements which I have quoted and the numerous discussions in recent months and years do point out to us that the judges in these cases are called

upon to make the law, and they are also called upon to decide what the penalty will be. I submit the time is overdue for us to make the law with regard to contempt of court by publications in the press or in periodicals and even to decide what the penalty will be.
I am sure that the judges of this country, for whom by tradition and experience I have the utmost respect, would themselves welcome such a guide and such assistance in the interpretation of this extremely difficult subject.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask a question?


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I understood my hon. friend to quote with approval what he describes as almost a definition of the conditions which must be met before a judge is warranted in citing for contempt. Would he not agree that what he has quoted is good law in itself? If so, wherein does the necessity of our passing a law to confirm or clarify it lie.


George Alexander Drew: That is exactly the situation: that does not bind our judges now. Chief Justice McRuer said he acted on the inherent authority of the judges. I could, but I do not need to, recite cases. The Minister of Justice knows of a case which has gone far beyond the limitation of this kind; what is more, the Minister of Justice knows very well that we have no appeal procedure in this country which brings cases before the courts in the way that they are brought before the courts of appeal in Britain. It was in such a case that this judgment was given. Mr. Chairman, what I am pointing out is that there is a procedure there, but it is also a procedure that is based upon long-standing judgments. We have seen fit to define contempt of court in a number of cases. If it was wise for us to define acts in those cases, I submit it is proper for us to define acts in this case. I submit in fact it is more appropriate to define contempt when it is something that relates to the freedom of the press and to the very great difficulty there must be in the minds of publishers at this time as to what actually does constitute contempt of court.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Can my hon. friend tell me of the cases in which we have defined contempt of court?


George Alexander Drew: That is exactly the point. There is no definition at the present time. There was no attempt specifically to define what contempt is in the case to which I have referred that was dealt with by the chief justice of Ontario. It was simply his decision, under his inherent powers, that there had been contempt of court; then, it was his decision, under his inherent powers, that he had gone too far; that he subsequently
Supply-Justice
thought that a more moderate sentence would be more in keeping with the offence with which he had dealt.
There was a case here in the city of Ottawa -I think it was just three years ago-when a very reputable publication, the Ottawa Journal, was fined $3,000 for contempt of court. Without questioning the authority of the judge to impose it-I might add it was the same judge who imposed the penalty in Cornwall this year-the Journal editorially subsequently pointed out that they were puzzled as to how the court had arrived at this figure, or how the chief justice had arrived at this figure, and I should imagine everybody would be puzzled. I do not think we should be puzzled at how a judge or court arrives at penalties. I think we should know in advance what the penalties are. That does not mean we should know the exact amount. In regard to incarceration, it should not be less than a certain period and not more than a certain period, and in the case of a money penalty, it should not be less than a certain amount and not more than a certain amount. It does seem to me that it is a most extraordinarily open-ended power in the hands of any judge, no matter how much we may respect our judiciary, to leave him completely free to decide what the penalty would be. The fact is, I know nothing at the moment that would say that a penalty of a million dollars would not be within the competence of a judge if he decided that was the proper penalty to impose against some large publishing house. I know of nothing at all that suggests any uniform pattern. It is entirely at the whim of the judge himself. I am sure that all of our judges would exercise their best judgment; but, Mr. Chairman, there is another strange aspect about this. We are very much inclined to make sure that in most cases the persons who feel themselves offended will not themselves judge what should be done. That is because we recognize we are all human beings, even judges.
In this case it is perfectly true that the offence technically is an offence against the court. Nevertheless, in a number of cases that have come forward recently, and I would refer particularly to one which was decided in Vancouver within the last few weeks, it was obvious that there was some feeling that this is an allegation against the judge and the jurors as individuals. Nevertheless, the judge who saw himself affected by what had been alleged or stated was himself the one who created the law and said what the contempt was in this case. Without in any way seeking to review the decision, I may say that it was a very unusual type of contempt, to say the least. Then, also the same judge,

Supply-Justice
having declared the law in that particular case, and a very unusual law it was, he imposed the penalty. I do not think that is in keeping with our ordinary practice. Surely our practice is not only to define an offence, to define a penalty, but also to allow a thing of this kind to be dealt with in an atmosphere of objective detachment, which may be very difficult for even the most high-minded individual when that individual himself may feel that there has been some reflection on him personally, as there appears to be in the case in Vancouver to which I have referred.
This suggests to me a further reason why it is vitally important that we should provide safeguards against injustice. When I use the word "injustice" I am applying that neither to any judge nor to anyone who has dealt with any of these cases. I apply it to injustice within the law. I point out, however, that this is the high court of parliament. This is the place to decide now whether the time has come to follow the same practice as has been followed in cases that perhaps could have much less serious consequences in their general impact upon society, and to define both the offence and the penalty and to make sure that the person who deals with the question will, in the ordinary course of events, most likely not be the person who has himself been affected. I should also like to point out another matter related to the statement by Sir Albert Walsh, chief justice of Newfoundland, in relation to the warning given to the public of Newfoundland with reference to these recent decisions which have been made which affected publishers in other cases.
I know there have been cases in Britain where under the most severe limitation publication of civil proceedings has been described as contempt of court. That was only, however, where it was done in a way that was likely to prejudice the individual, and that was very carefully pointed out in the case I cited where the application was refused on that very ground.
I would point out that in this case in Newfoundland, without in any way going into the merits, the allegation in a civil case is precisely the same as in a criminal case so there should be no possibility of prejudice to the individual concerned by a repetition in a much simpler form of the very allegation repeated over and over again in connection with criminal proceedings.
I remember distinctly how well established a practice it is to publish civil proceedings. As the Minister of Justice knows, I was for some time master of the supreme court of Ontario, and I remember that one of the

regular proceedings each day was for the press to come and obtain copies of civil proceedings that had been heard in master's chambers.
These were published with complete freedom and there was never the slightest chance that any single detail in any of these civil proceedings could possibly be subject to restraint unless an order had been made declaring that they should not be published.
I place this before the Minister of Justice, Mr. Chairman, that if there is to be any restraint on publication of this kind in regard to civil proceedings it should only be under order. After all, that is a simple procedure.
I recall very well a case that the Minister of Justice will probably remember, namely, the famous Miller will case. Many people are not aware that one very interesting paragraph in that will has never been published. It is a most unusual paragraph and it was not published because it would have caused considerable embarrassment to certain individuals and dependents. The order was obtained on proper application supported by convincing evidence that it would cause embarrassment, and that there was no real necessity for its publication. Under that order that paragraph has never been published to this day, interesting though the will was and still is.
I can recall other orders where, because of indecency or slanderous statements and things of that kind, orders were made in very rare cases in regard to particular paragraphs of some documents. That, I submit, Mr. Chairman, is the proper procedure. In that case the court knows, the public knows, and everyone has a right to know what may or may not be published.
I think it is contrary to our whole idea of free and open trial before the courts to place blanket warnings before the public which might carry forward this very uncertain, unsatisfactory and unsound practice, in regard to contempt of court proceedings in relation to the press, a stage still further in connection with the proceedings now under way.
In my opinion this threat to newspapers in Newfoundland indicates that this whole question of contempt of court has got completely out of hand. It should not be necessary for me to repeat, as I did once before, that personally I have the highest regard for Sir Albert Walsh in his judicial and personal capacity, as I have for every member of that bench.
But it is my responsibility, as it is the responsibility of every member of this high court of parliament, to deal with any matter

that comes before us where we think a possible injustice may be done or something be done affecting the general welfare of our society.
It is in that light that I have brought this matter before the Minister of Justice today, and I would point out that the chief justice of Newfoundland expressed some concern about the trial of this case by press and radio.
I do not take exception to certain statements in regard to the rights of the individual that were made, but I would point out that it was also by press and radio that the chief justice issued his warning which, with an undefined law, may have a very limiting effect upon freedom of the press and freedom of speech in that part of Canada which has a longer tradition, in many respects, of judicial proceedings than other parts of Canada with which Newfoundland is now joined as part of one nation.
I would also point out that the proceedings which took place in Newfoundland are likely to have their effect upon the proceedings that take place in other parts of Canada.
The question arises as to what parliament can do. I submit that, entirely contrary to what the Minister of Justice said the other day about the administration of justice bringing this within the jurisdiction of the provinces, this is a subject under the authority of parliament. It has been so declared in other cases of contempt. There is an offence and there is a penalty. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is entirely in keeping with the other section now in the code, and other sections in other laws, that we should be prepared to deal with this subject.
I believe the Minister of Justice could very well have legislation framed during the course of the present session. After all, there is certain legislation not yet before us. It Would be possible to define this law in a very simple way and, Mr. Chairman, I for one would feel much more satisfied about the situation if there were a clear definition which made it quite certain that the likelihood of injury to someone being tried must definitely and unquestionably be proved, and also that there be some definite limits both to the penalty that may be imposed by way of jail sentence, and to the penalty that may be imposed by way of a fine.
This, Mr. Chairman, is something that has been discussed quite often, and I know it has been before the Minister of Justice to an extent. But I submit there would still be time to draft a satisfactory statute dealing with this subject, and I believe the freedom of the press and the right of the press to the time-honoured protection of knowing what the law is in advance demands that
Supply-Justice
this high court of parliament define this particular type of contempt, as other types have been defined, and take away from the judges for their own satisfaction as well as ours what members of this high court of parliament have, namely the responsibility for deciding the extent of the penalty that can be imposed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, in the same manner as the Leader of the Opposition, I have a very high regard for Sir Albert Walsh and his colleagues on the Newfoundland bench, and likewise for Chief Justice McRuer and his colleagues of the supreme court of Ontario. I think that my hon. friend would agree with me that we can share an equally high opinion of the judges in the Canadian courts generally.
Is this therefore not the situation? For many long years-for decades if not for generations-the parliament of Great Britain and the parliament and the legislatures of Canada also, having a high opinion of judges, have not felt that they were under the necessity of defining what constituted contempt of court or of setting the limits of the penalties that could be imposed for it. If the need for that which my hon. friend is now requesting be an inherent one, if it be something in the nature of things, as he seems to represent it, I should think the likelihood is that it would have made itself felt some time before now.
There are one or two distinctions to be drawn here. For example, when my hon. friend raised this matter the other day, he was speaking not about contempt of court but about a warning which had been given by Chief Justice Sir Albert Walsh and his colleagues of the superior court of Newfoundland in the city of St. John's, arising out of the publication by the newspapers there of some material. My suggestion to my hon. friend was that, if he were, as I understood him to be, objecting to that warning as an improper act in the administration of justice, it was a matter which was the concern of the attorney general of Newfoundland because that matter is clearly involved in the administration of justice in Newfoundland. If that warning were to be followed in the actual trial itself by citation by Sir Albert or any of his colleagues of anyone for disregarding the warning or in some other way committing a contempt of court, I do not share my hon. friend's view that the presiding judge in a trial, in the exercise of the inherent right of the court to punish for contempt in order that it may have that proper control over its own trials that it should have if it is to conduct them properly,

Supply-Justice
can do this capriciously or, to use my hon. friend's word, at the presiding judge's whim. He cannot introduce some new concept of contempt of court and, on the basis of this concept in his own mind, cite for contempt and impose a penalty.
For my hon. friend himself quoted-and I thought very aptly indeed-one of the leading cases in England which said that, in order to prove contempt of court, the applicant must show that something has been published that was clearly intended or at least was calculated to mislead a trial which was pending. I think it is a fairly elementary proposition that if the judge in any court wishes properly, in accordance with the decided cases as to what contempt of court is, to cite for contempt of court, he must act in accordance with the jurisprudence which has been built up upon the subject of contempt of court.


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt the Minister of Justice but I would point out that in the Vancouver case that was not the test. It was something entirely different. It was after a verdict had actually been given.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I really hesitate to discuss the Vancouver case, the Bal-combe case or these other cases, and for this amongst other reasons. In terms of the definition that my hon. friend quoted, and with which offhand I venture to agree-I think this is a very good statement of the jurisprudence upon the subject of this particular kind of contempt of court-my hon. friend will see by the most casual perusal of the definition he cited that the applicant must show that something has been published which clearly is intended or at least is calculated to mislead the trial which is pending. That, Mr. Chairman, is a question of fact. One of the greatest difficulties we have in discussing the merits of the contempt of court in the Balcombe case or the possible contempt of court in the case in Newfoundland or the merits of the warning that was issued in Newfoundland as applied to the facts there-one reason why it is almost impossible to discuss these things intelligently is that they hinge upon the facts, and we do not have a comprehensive statement of the facts.
This is an extremely important matter, and it is very much to the credit of the Leader of the Opposition that he raised it. After he brought it up the other day I wrote to Sir Albert Walsh the following letter dated May 31:
Dear Sir Albert:
I am enclosing herewith the Hansard report of May 27, 1954, in which is recorded an exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and myself with regard to a statement attributed to you in the Daily News of St. John's.

One of the difficulties of discussing a question of this sort intelligently in the House of Commons is that, in a matter which it seems to me hinges largely upon fact, we do not have a comprehensive statement of the facts. If, therefore, you could directly or if you think it preferable, through the Attorney General of Newfoundland, put me in possession of material relevant to any discussion which may be opened up by the Leader of the Opposition or others, such a course would, I think, lessen the possibility of the debates here creating a misunderstanding by Canadian public opinion of the issues involved.
That is one reason why it is so difficult to deal with, as finally and as conclusively as they deserve to be dealt with, the points raised by my friend the Leader of the Opposition.
However, in general terms I think this much can be said. To begin with, with great deference, in the light of the case law which my hon. friend himself cited, which is fairly clear and explicit of one type of contempt, I would doubt as to whether there is any definition which we could insert in the Criminal Code or in any other statute which would be any clearer or better statement of what that type of contempt consisted, than what my hon. friend referred to- and very correctly-as almost a definition of the conditions which must be met before the judge is entitled to cite for contempt of court. On that point therefore I would doubt very much whether it was desirable that we should insert a section to that effect in the Criminal Code, something which, as my hon. friend himself has proven, is already dealt with in the jurisprudence upon the subject. If we did so-as I am sure he would be the first to agree-we could only do so in relation to those criminal courts which are referred to in the Criminal Code itself. Rather than do that, the royal commission which was charged with the task of consolidating the code, our own Department of Justice and, up until the present time, the House of Commons and the other place- although I understand that the members of the other place are examining this particular provision at the present time-have thought that the substantial points which my friend the Leader of the Opposition has raised today might be properly met by providing, as the new Criminal Code consolidation bill provides in clause 9:
Where a court, judge, justice or magistrate summarily convicts a person for a contempt of court and imposes punishment in respect thereof, that person may, with leave of the court of appeal or a judge thereof, appeal to the court of appeal
(a)	from the conviction, or
(b)	against the punishment imposed.
It continues in subsection 2 as follows:
For the purposes of an appeal under subsection (1) the provisions of Part XVIII apply, mutatis mutandis.

That means, as I am sure my hon. friend will agree, that for the first time in Canada we will have an appeal both from the conviction and the sentence in respect of a citation for contempt of court. This appeal will enable the appeal court to deal with the question of what constitutes contempt of court, or to use my hon. friend's term, what is its proper definition. Thus it will cover the case in which a judge, purporting to cite for contempt of court, has imposed a penalty for something which, whatever it may be, is not contempt of court. All these points can go before the court of appeal; and there can also go before the court of appeal for reconsideration the adequacy of the sentence which has been imposed. Thus I would think, with great deference, that in the new Criminal Code Bill No. 7 we have anticipated my hon. friend and have gone already as far as we should go in this direction which he has suggested.
With regard to contempt of court committed in a civil court, without going into the matter too carefully I would be inclined to think that an appeal from a citation for contempt of court occurring in provincial courts exercising civil jurisdiction would more than likely have to be provided by provincial legislation. For offhand I cannot entirely accept my hon. friend's suggestion that contempt of court is a crime in the narrow sense. I would say that the power to cite for contempt of court is an inherent power of a court of superior jurisdiction to control the proceedings before the court itself, and that if there are to be any limitations upon the power to cite for contempt in a provincial court of civil jurisdiction dealing with civil cases the question would have to be carefully looked into as to whether that could be provided by any other than provincial legislation.


George Alexander Drew: I want to deal very briefly with two points raised by the Minister of Justice. First of all, I am very strongly of the opinion that this is properly a subject for action by parliament. I would point out that section 164 of the existing code indicates how far parliament has gone in dealing with penalties relating to matters that may come under not only laws of the parliament of Canada but provincial laws as well. The minister will remember that section 164 reads as follows:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to one year's imprisonment who, without lawful excuse, disobeys any act of the parliament of Canada or of any legislature in Canada by wilfully doing any act which it forbids, or omitting to do any act which it requires to be done, unless some penalty or other mode of punishment is expressly provided by law.
Supply-Justice
I read that for this reason. This is intended to make sure that there shall be no loose interpretation of the inherent authority of the court but rather that in any case where any act, either of the parliament of Canada or of a provincial legislature, calls for something to be done, the failure to carry out that obligation renders the person liable to one year's imprisonment for such failure if some penalty has not otherwise been provided either by the parliament of Canada, under its jurisdiction with relation to criminal law because otherwise it would have no right to enter that field, or by the provincial legislature. I mention that because I submit, while it is not on all fours with the problem before us, that it does indicate the extent to which, under the general authority of the parliament of Canada, anything that savours of criminal Jaw or a criminal offence or punitive action is within our jurisdiction and calls for action.
With respect to the point made by the Minister of Justice about the quotation I gave from the case I described as the leading case at the moment in Britain, I would point out that does not apply here because the judges here act under the inherent power of the court, as Chief Justice McRuer said.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They do in England too.


George Alexander Drew: Oh yes, but of course, as the Minister of Justice knows, there is an appeal procedure which over the years has established very clearly a definite jurisprudence. That is exactly the point I am making. These cases to which I refer are cases that follow a definite line of precedents. I have pointed out in support of my contention that we need something here to define the penalty in line with other definitions and stated penalties. The fact is that we have had cases in Canada which have clearly demonstrated that our judges do not feel themselves bound by the limitation to which I have already referred in regard to publication of matter in the press.
It is with that thought in mind that I submit that if offences in court against the orders of the court need to be defined it is even more necessary, in relation to those things that go out to hundreds, thousands and millions of people for reading, that the offence should be defined and the definition should be in the simplest, most understandable form. Without suggesting that it should be limited to that, I certainly would feel very much more satisfied if a simple statute were enacted that merely interpreted in statute form the definition I quoted from the English case and also what the maximum penalty will be.

Supply-Justice
I can only repeat that as the situation stands at the moment some publication which might be assessed a penalty of $1 million- and in these days of high penalties that is not an impossibility-would have no argument to sustain the claim that that was an excessive penalty. Surely with the best of judges and with the best of intent on the part of these judges, which no one questions, it is not consistent with our practice to leave such wide powers in the hands of any judge at this time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should like to make two observations. First we were under the impression that by providing an appeal we were meeting the very points which my hon. friend has just now so clearly enunciated. The other point is this. Does my hon. friend really think that we would be well advised to use our power to enact statutes in relation to the criminal law to attempt to define what should be contempt of court and the punishment therefore in civil actions in the provincial courts of civil jurisdiction? Should such statutes not be left to the provincial legislatures to enact even if we had the power to enact them?


George Alexander Drew: I submit that the action under which a person is haled before a court by way of contempt of court proceedings is in fact a criminal proceeding and that it should be dealt with in that way for the whole of Canada so that in every part of the country publishers will know exactly what they have a right to do and will be warned in advance, in accordance with our ordinary concept of justice, of the things that they must not do.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, if the discussion on this phase is over, there is one matter I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Justice.


The Deputy Chairman:: Perhaps the hon. member would not object if I were to interrupt him at this moment to ask the hon. member for Prince Albert if he wishes to follow the same line of discussion as the Leader of the Opposition. If the hon. member for Vancouver East is agreeable, I think we might make our debate more orderly if we followed the same line of argument.


Mr. Power (St. John's West):: Could I say a word on this point?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the hon. member for Vancouver East agreeable that the hon. member should follow the same line of discussion?


Harold Edward Winch: I presume I can follow after this subject is finished.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Yes. I did not wish to interrupt the hon. member.


Harold Edward Winch: I presume I can follow afterwards?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I did not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but I thought we might make our discussion more orderly by discussing one subject at a time.


James Augustine Power: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of attempting to give my view as to what should be done about the law of contempt or of stepping in between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Justice. However, I believe something should be cleared up in connection with this matter. The Leader of the Opposition expressed his respect for the Newfoundland bench and the chief justice of Newfoundland. He did say something else in connection with the Valdmanis case that should be mentioned because people do read the spicy parts of speeches.
In referring to the Valdmanis case the Leader of the Opposition mentioned secret trials and star chamber proceedings. I do not think the Leader of the Opposition would like that phrase to stand in connection with this matter because he knows, and everybody in this house knows, that there are no secret trials or star chamber proceedings in Newfoundland.


Harold Edward Winch: There is one matter I should like to mention on this item because it is a policy matter, and I do not know of any other item in the estimates under which it could be raised. Actually, it is a request to the Minister of Justice to use his position in a way I think will prove of benefit to Canada as a whole.
Unfortunately, there are those people who, for one reason or another, come into conflict with the law. When they are caught, they have to pay the penalty of the law. In these modern days of penology the old punitive idea is rapidly disappearing, and I am certain that all of us in this house are very pleased that this forward step has been made in the penitentiary system in Canada. I personally know of the progress being made and I want to add my words of commendation concerning the changes that have taken place in recent years. The minister is most certainly to be congratulated on that phase of the activities of his department.
I am certain the minister will agree with the idea that once a person comes out of the penitentiary after serving the penalty for his crime against society, it is the hope of everyone in authority that the person can take his place as a respected and responsible member of society. I feel I am absolutely safe in saying that in the majority of cases the various police authorities do not obstruct those

who have served the penalty and who try to become useful members of society. I know a great many of the members of the various police forces of Canada who do everything they possibly can to co-operate and to help those who have served a term in prison. I want to emphasize that statement I have just made, that in my opinion the majority of the officers of the police forces go out of their way to assist because of what I am now going to say.
It is unfortunate, but there is a minority in the police forces of Canada, and I include the R.C.M.P., who do not take the position that these people who break the law and have served their penalty should be assisted. I am not speaking from hearsay or rumour. I am speaking from a working knowledge of the fact that unfortunately there are a few on the police forces, including the R.C.M.P., who will go out of their way to persecute a person who has served a sentence, instead of helping him. I ask the Minister of Justice, as the nominal head of law and justice in this country, as well as the R.C.M.P., if there is any way of issuing a directive to indicate that these people should be helped if they are deserving of help.
I could take a great deal of time in giving instance after instance to prove my point, but I am just going to give one. I am not going to mention any names because that would not be fair, and it would only give publicity to the matter. I definitely know of a man who broke the law-no question about it. He was found guilty and paid the penalty. He spent a term in the penitentiary, and I was convinced he had learned his lesson. He came out determined he would never go back. He got himself a job and proved he had ability. He rose to be manager of the company. He had a family, and then what happened? No sooner had he become established than the R.C.M.P. came in and told his employer he had a record. Fortunately for this man he was wise, and had told his employer when he applied. He was staying at a motel, and the R.C.M.P. officer went to the motel owner and told him the man had a record and to get rid of him.
This went on for a period of time, and at last the man could not stand any more of it. He moved about two provinces away and got another job. He proved himself again and rose to be the top salesman for this company so that now he is the boss over all the other salesmen. His life, Mr. Chairman, is still being made a living hell on his route. Many of the customers upon whom he calls are told, even before he gets there, that this man is going to travel that route. During the last two months, because of the weather in the prairie provinces, he tried to
Supply-Justice
avoid that embarrassment by going into British Columbia. In the city of Kamloops, what happened? He was there one day when the R.C.M.P. came into the hotel and he was driven out again. As I say, I am not mentioning any names. I am just citing one case, and I am glad it is rare. You can see what that could do to a man who is trying to make good, and who has paid the penalty.
I shall be glad, in confidence, to turn the entire information over to my hon. friend. I am going to reiterate what I said before, that in the majority of cases the police officers are found to be co-operative. There are some who take this attitude of persecution. I hope the minister can perhaps do something, either directly or through some other medium, to make it clear to all law enforcement officers that they should be very careful in protecting people, and very careful in watching those they think are not going to reform. However, when they see a man or woman trying to rehabilitate themselves, trying to be good citizens, the officers should help them instead of trying to drive them down.
There is one other case I would like to refer to the minister, in the hope that perhaps he can do something about it. It is a case which I had brought to my attention about two years ago, and concerns a young man who was called from his home by his chum. They were going down the street, and the chum-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I interrupt the hon. member for a moment, to say only this, that what my hon. friend states in relation to this case is so completely at variance with the instruction and the traditions of the mounted police that I know he will not take offence if I say I find it extremely difficult to believe. But I will welcome his bringing all the details of the case before me; and he may rest completely assured that it will have the most careful investigation. And if there is any foundation for the allegations which my hon. friend has made, he may be sure the proper steps will be taken.


Harold Edward Winch: I welcome the remarks of the minister. That is one of the reasons I mentioned it, because I was certain he would get up and make a definite statement. And may I suggest that I am not speaking of one case, or a particular record. I am speaking from experience in a number of cases. I reiterate that this is not to be taken as a criticism of the majority of law enforcement officers in this dominion, or of the R.C.M.P. But I wish to get across the point that there is still a minority who are not doing what the minister wants. I said a moment ago

Supply-Justice
that I will be glad to turn over the complete file of this particular case, in confidence. That is one sample. I could give him quite a number.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would be glad to have them all.


Harold Edward Winch: And then, on the other point- and to me it is the important point. From my understanding it can be handled only by the federal government, or perhaps by the house. It refers to a young man in his teens who, along with his chum, was out on the street. Apparently this chum was not too good, and told this boy that he wanted to go behind a store for a few minutes. While the chum did not know it the other boy was breaking and entering. They were arrested. The boy who broke and entered was sentenced, and the other boy was let go on a suspended sentence. He never spent a day in a provincial jail, or a day in a penitentiary -and never has in his whole life.
Some time later he got a job. Just to indicate his ability, let me say that he worked up to a position where he had to be bonded. An application was made by the company-one of the best known companies in Canada-for the bond. They received a refusal-"his name is on a police blotter". He lost his job.
Then he got another job, and five years later had worked up to an administrative position, where he had to be bonded. Again the company gave the answer: "No, his name is on a police blotter". Sir, today that man has lost all hope; he is frustrated; he is an itinerant worker; his wife and child have left him-all because the bonding company will not give him a bond, all because twenty-three years ago his name was put on a police blotter, under the circumstances I have described. And even after that period of time, the bonding company will not give him a bond.
I took the matter up with the local police department and asked if something could be done. The answer was: "We are sorry. We agree with you. We know this man. We know his father-he was an officer of this police force. But we cannot do a thing about it; it is the law. It is something that comes under the federal government."
I have not been able to find out how the matter stands, and what can be done about it. And that is the first of three such cases that have come to my attention. I thought I would raise the matter here and ask the minister if there is anything that can be done, or is required to be done, so far as the law is concerned, in a case of that kind.
TMr. Wincii.]


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If I understood my hon. friend correctly it would seem to me that this has not anything to do with the police. It has only to do with the policy of the bonding company. That company, controlling its own money and its own business policy, is entitled to say upon what terms it will grant a bond. If the company has a fixed policy that will not grant a bond to anyone who has a criminal record, however slight or however long ago, then that company policy would prevent the issuance of a bond. The police were quite correct when they told my hon. friend that there was nothing they could do about it. But they were not correct if, as he said, they told him that that was the law.
There is no law about it at all. If he was convicted and was released on suspended sentence, he was in fact convicted. That fact is recorded in a public record. And if the bonding company will not issue a bond, that is not the fault of the police or the law. I doubt very much if we could pass a law here, other than one which would expunge convictions from the records beyond a certain date, which would change the situation of which my hon. friend complains.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I would refer first to the statement made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I must say that when he stated that even a minority of the R.C.M.P. were hounding persons within this country who at some time had been convicted, it is something that is not in keeping with my experience nor, I am sure, the experience of Canadians generally.
The mounted police need no defence. For many years, to a degree experienced by perhaps only a few in the house, I have appeared opposite them, and I have never known this distinguished body, either in a minority or in a majority, to do anything that would interfere with the rehabilitation of any person who at any time had committed an offence.
The R.C.M.P. need no defence; and I think the hon. gentleman would have been far better advised had he placed this case before the authorities. If, as he says, there are several cases, then I think the minister should ask for those several cases, because apparently there is a concentration in one province of such wrongdoing that is not to be found in the other provinces.
I say this because I feel that to generalize, as the hon. member has done, in regard to this great force, with its traditions for service, for honour and for proper police protection, and to castigate them even as a minority

before the House of Commons, does not give to them that degree of fairness that I feel they deserve.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kamloops is to be congratulated on the effective manner in which he discussed this very serious problem of preserving and maintaining the security of the state while, at the same time, maintaining the rights of the individual to the maximum extent. This afternoon parliament discussed a subject worthy of the best traditions of the House of Commons.
Generally speaking, it is good that from time to time major questions such as this should be considered with the fullest and frankest exchange of opinions. We realize the danger which we face nationally and internationally from communism. However, in meeting communism, we must not allow ourselves to drift into a condition that might be described as a garrison state. In meeting the terrible challenge that communism has raised as against freedom everywhere in the world the major responsibility of democratic parliaments today is to endeavour at all times not to imperil unnecessarily personal rights and freedom beyond that boundary wherein the safety of the state must be of paramount importance and must be maintained.
This afternoon the Prime Minister dealt with this matter at considerable length. At times I felt he was having difficulty in explaining his support for a system which has its imperfections, which had its shortcomings and its dangers revealed by the hon. member for Kamloops and which inherently in its constitution is a denial of the rule of law and the maintenance of the rights of the individual. Everywhere, among nations with a democratic background and a parliamentary heritage, the same difficulty besets the endeavours of governments to achieve their purposes through established institutions.
The hon. member for Kamloops showed what had been done in Britain. I intend to refer to what is being done or projected in the United States to the end that, where there are in the present system shortcomings that endanger the rights of the individual, those rights shall be maintained within the widest possible limits consistent with safety.
Supply-Justice
Parliament today found out for the first time that the Secretary of State was the chairman of this committee during a period of time. Because of the knowledge he possesses, the Secretary of State is one who should at least give the committee some idea of the operation of this secret committee. History shows that anonymously-manned committees dealing with the freedom of the individual are generally the prelude to the denial of the rights of the individual. Such procedure is the antithesis of freedom. It subjects the individual not to the rule of law but to the arbitrarily capricious exercise of the power of the state. These things are necessarily so when danger threatens. What parliament has to face is this fact. While we want to assure our security as of the first importance, under no circumstances do we want anything in the nature of a star chamber that operates behind closed doors, is presided over by the instrument of anonymity, that carries out its work without the evidence of the individual accused, and which, by the course that it follows, pronounces upon that individual, in the event of his being found unfit, a penalty that will remain with him throughout life.
Today, as always, there are those who challenge freedom. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition today dealing with some remarks made by the chief justice of Newfoundland to the press of that province, which anticipated that the press might commit an offence for which punishment was intimated.
Freedom cannot survive without hospitality to ideas with which we disagree. I fear for freedom when the right of the press to speak fearlessly and to report fairly is challenged at any time. There is that everlasting conflict between freedom of speech and the fear of it. There is an everlasting conflict between, on the one hand, the tendency to suppress what we disagree with, and on the other the right to speak as we wish, so long as in speaking we do not speak treasonably, seditiously, blasphemously or libellously. Without freedom of the press there can be no political liberty. It will soon be a memory. That is why I agree with what the hon. gentleman said, that the right of the individual to appeal against conviction registered for contempt is in the nature of a reform that has been long needed and required.
I know of no better definition of what freedom of the press means than that once spoken by Jefferson when he said:
The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide

Supply-Justice
whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, X should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.
Freedom of the press is challenged when warnings are made in advance as to what will take place if the newspapers do what they have the right to do, namely, to report fairly and accurately the facts of a case. And the challenge is multiplied where there is no right of appeal after conviction when the newspaper does its duty and publishes what it is entitled to do.
I cannot see what the challenge to security is in having revealed the names of the members of this committee. Shall we have a body charged with the power to determine a man's reputation for all time to come? A body that is anonymous? That body may bd right in most of the conclusions it comes to, but a secret tribunal is a perversion of justice and a denial of our heritage.
I ask the minister to explain where there is in our security that which requires that this committee shall remain undesignated. Why should not the accused have the right to give evidence before that body? I realize that the identity of his accusers cannot be made available to him, otherwise it might very well be that the entire system of counter-espionage would be defeated. But surely an individual, anonymously charged, anonymously proceeded against, should have the right to know something of the general nature of the charge. Surely he has a right not to be condemned in a secret tribunal, meeting secretly, and coming to a decision behind closed doors.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am quite sure my hon. friend does not wish to mislead the committee. It has been explained on a great many occasions that the secret panel, to which my hon. friend has referred, does not deal with any of these individual cases at all. It deals with the general question of security, questions of policy, and the like. But the idea that the case of a person who is suspected of being a poor security risk comes up before the security panel is quite without foundation.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not say that they come before the security panel. I say the security panel determines the question, and the person whose reputation will be destroyed by suspicion and by the action taken should at least have the right to answer.
But let the minister reply to me when I have concluded my remarks, because I have some suggestions to make in connection with this matter. I admit it cannot be a public

investigation, but we do not want it to be by a legislative committee either. The experience in recent weeks of a public investigation of communist wrongdoers or potential wrongdoers is a perversion of democracy where trial takes place by innuendo and where, in the public mind, conviction takes place by suspicion.
No, not by a public legislative committee. After all, in an organization such as that, headline hunting takes the place of judicial calm, and guilt is determined on the basis of the charge laid, regardless of the evidence.
It cannot be publicly done; it cannot be by public inquiry. If it is to be done in the only way available, namely through consideration by representatives on a panel, I suggest this, that first and foremost there should be the right to answer, and where therq is any preponderance of evidence the security of the state shall determine the result.
But surely the principle of an anonymous tribunal need not necessarily be adopted in order either to preserve the security of the state or to assure justice.
A recent case in the United States is of interest. That is the case of Dr. Oppenheimer who was suspended last December, and who made his appeal to the atomic energy commission security board. That board made its decision yesterday, and by a majority of two to one determined that, while Dr. Oppenheimer was not guilty of any direct offence, in the interests of security the acceptance of his withdrawal in December, as requested, should be continued.
But apparently that is not to be the final move. In yesterday's issue of the Christian Science Monitor President Eisenhower is reported to have said that the Oppenheimer case is still going through a quasi-judicial process and that until the appeal was finally settled he would not comment.
In that I think there is a suggestion that might well be adopted in this country, namely that in any decision that is made adverse to the individual he should at least have available a quasi-judicial appeal, at which he could present his side of the case so that injustice shall not be done, and so that unfairness will not be allowed to pass unchallenged, while at the same time maintaining the security of the state.
After all, this is a very difficult problem to handle. It is one that challenges the ingenuity of those who would meet it. These things admitted, nonetheless I believe this. Every individual should have the right of appeal to a quasi-judicial body, not meeting openly, in order to give him the opportunity, whoever the accused may be, to place his side

erf the case before that body to the end that, in maintaining our security, we do not go to the length of making possible the sacrifice of an innocent man's future by the failure to provide those safeguards which freedom, throughout the years, has established to maintain and assure the maintenance of the freedom of the individual.
Only the other day I came upon a novel that was written in the first world war and which, I think, epitomizes what I have been trying to place before the committee. It was one written by Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch. The title page reads as follows:
The best revenge on your enemy is not to be like him.
The story that is revealed in this novel is of two antagonists, each steeped in hatred of the other and who, after years, grew to resemble each other so closely that at the end it became hard to tell one from the other.
Mr. Chairman, let us maintain our national security in the world of today but let us not go to the point that we sacrifice the freedoms for which we contend and imitate the thing we hate in order to defeat that thing. That represents the viewpoint that I think might be brought before the committee. It is not advanced in any spirit of criticism but in a realization that, in the cold war of today that seems destined to continue for many years in our generation, first and foremost in this citadel of freedom each of us must speak out to the end that there may be preserved that degree of freedom which will assure the mainsprings of resistance against the forces of communism. I do not believe that those mainsprings can be maintained by sacrificing them unnecessarily for the expediency of the moment.


Mr. Hosking:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take only a moment or two of the time of the committee to express my opinion with regard to the department run by the Minister of Justice. I think we as Canadians can all be proud of the groups of people who come under his jurisdiction, and we can all hope that they will continue to be maintained at the high standard at which they are maintained today.
I would refer particularly to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I think that every member of parliament and also a great many citizens of this country have heard the words of praise from visitors to this country with regard to their appearance, their efficiency and their integrity. I am glad to know that the present minister is maintaining that high standard in this extremely important force.
Supply-Justice
I should also like to pay him a compliment on the way in which our penal institutions under his jurisdiction have been maintained. I think we have every reason to be justly proud of the little trouble we have had in our penitentiaries in the past years. I also think that we can and should show the same admiration towards the judges of this country; and it is on this point that I wish to say the few words that I am going to say tonight.
The judges in this country have had the happy position of being well respected ever since the founding of the dominion. Anything that might happen to them to change this opinion of the people would be a serious detriment to the country. Since the end of the war there have been numerous cases where our judiciary have been used to arbitrate in industrial disputes. It may be extremely flattering to the judiciary to be picked as arbitrators on these boards, but I do not believe that this is a good way for the judges of our country to be used. To me the work of a judge in administering justice seems to be a different field from that of an arbitrator. It is necessary for an arbitrator to stretch justice one way or the other so that a plane of mutual understanding can be reached. I do not like to think for a minute that justice in our courts should be regarded as something that could be stretched one way or the other in order to meet some compromising position between two opinions. I do not believe the man lives who can spend weeks and weeks in making extremely important decisions which are not justice decisions but which are expedient decisions, without an effect being produced upon his opinions. I cannot help feeling that the people who sit and watch the performance in these arbitration cases cannot have the proper respect for the arbitrator acting as a judge after they have had the experience of watching one of these arbitration cases.
I think it is highly important to this country that some method be found to relieve the judges of the responsibility of accepting positions as arbitrators. Not only do we have the two different schools of thought-they are different; and I sincerely hope they will always remain so-but we have judges absent from their offices for weeks at a time when the lawyers in that community- and I am not a lawyer-have not the access to the judge which they should have. This absenteeism must make the position of many solicitors extremely difficult. I should therefore like to see the Minister of Justice spend the time that is necessary to make with the provinces the arrangements, which must be made, to return our judges to their benches,

Supply-Justice
so that they may not be put in the position where labour leaders and management both leel that it is not justice that is being dispensed and where, in some cases, they will exhort their supporters to disregard the opinion of a man whose opinion should not be disregarded.
I would plead with the minister that he take the steps that are necessary for the discontinuance of this practice of using judges on arbitration commissions.
It may be that the judges should be paid more. I am not in a posiiton to argue one way or the other about that, but it certainly should be made perfectly clear that a condition exists now that did not exist ten years ago and it should not be allowed to continue for years. If the process of arbitration is to be permanent, if it is to go on down through the years, then it is time that we changed our system so that we will not have judges acting as arbitrators in labour disputes.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief but I have something to say. 1 do not doubt the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver East. I think he will get somewhere with the Minister of Justice, but his experience is not mine. I have sponsored a great many convicted people, I think about 172, released on permit or parole, and only three have failed. Even they did not fail very badly. One man was the worst because he could not keep away from liquor. My worst problem is not the police. The worst problem I meet in trying to rehabilitate some of these men is their own thinking. I have never had a boy under 20 years of age who was a repeater.
When the Prime Minister was minister of justice he said that it was in the best interests of human beings not to make them serve the full term of their sentences. Our present Solicitor General was kind enough to let me have a boy when he had only served half his sentence last week which shows that the Department of Justice and the minister have not changed their attitude. I think it is in the best interests of the man who makes a mistake not to make him serve his full term, and I think the Minister of Justice will support that statement.
We have a man in Fort William now who has been a repeater. I refused to sponsor him when he was released this time because I could not believe him. You have to judge a man by his conduct, and I am still hoping that some day he will change his mind and go to the proper source for help to overcome his difficulties. I must say that I have had co-operation from our police in Fort William. In the case of one man who was released on

permit the mounted police went further in my opinion than I thought they should go, further than I would go because I was a little bit afraid that the man would not keep his word. That prisoner came from Westminster jail and not from Fort William.
The mounted police have co-operated with me splendidly, and I think that the hon. member for Vancouver East will find that the case he mentioned will be cleared up completely either by the Minister of Justice or by the chief of the remission branch. I do not doubt his experience at all. It is heartburning to a man who is trying to make good to be hounded. It is the duty of all of us to see that these men get a chance to make good. I thank the chief of the remission branch and the Minister of Justice for the co-operation they have given me. We have got to be very careful in recommending anybody for parole or release on permit. We should thoroughly examine the case in cooperation with the chief of police or the provincial police, and when we are convinced that the boy, man or woman wants to make good and is ready to be released we should trust them and co-operate all the way.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Fort William referred to me twice, and may I say that he and I are not far apart at all. As a matter of fact we are very close. I agree with him completely that the big problem is the man himself and I have never said anything different. When I spoke this afternoon I said not once but at least half a dozen times that in my experience the majority of the law enforcement officers in Canada, including the R.C.M.P., are doing a splendid job in assisting those who have served their penalty. I even said more than that. I said that from my personal knowledge many of them go out of their way to help.
I did say that there was a minority, a few if you like, who did not fall into that class. I drew that to the attention of the minister because, as I explained when I started, in my estimation a forthright statement by the Minister of Justice would mean a great deal to all the law enforcement bodies of Canada. From what the minister said I am certain that he understood me perfectly. The only one who did not understand me, who did not pay attention to what I said about the majority, was the hon. member for Prince Albert. Why he had to pick on my reference to the few is up to him. I think I know the reason why. But what I said was quite clear to the minister. I will give him the information and I am certain, as has been said by the hon. member for Fort William, that the case will

be very carefully investigated in confidence because it involves some persons in the civil service.
While I am on my feet may I say one other thing. Strangely enough, once again I am going to do as I did when I started this afternoon, speak in commendation of the minister and his administration. No matter what party we represent, I believe that if we think the government is wrong we should criticize them as severely as we can, and if we think they are right and are doing a good job we should commend them. I am always prepared to do that and I always have. I have been most interested in an experiment that has been carried on now for approximately two and a half years in the British Columbia penitentiary. As it is an experiment, I presume that the authority for it must have come from the Minister of Justice. I understand it is the only penitentiary in Canada where such an experiment has taken place. It is not costing the government or the taxpayers any money. I am referring to the Dale Carnegie course in the British Columbia penitentiary. It was my privilege to spend two days in the penitentiary as a visitor.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: I got in and I got out.
Unfortunately the warden was not there on account of ill health, but in the two days I met all the top officials and a great many of the guards and they spoke in the highest terms of this course which was being conducted as an experiment. I spoke to a great number of the inmates, and they were high in their praise of the course. Since that time I have found out that for the last course, which I believe was the third, there were more applicants than the instructor could possibly take because he will not take more than 35.
Since I arrived in Ottawa I have received a number of letters from the inmates who took the first course telling me of the jobs they now hold since they have been released into society, and how this course completely changed their outlook and their attitudes to life. From what I heard from officials of the penitentiary, the guards, the inmates and those who are graduates of the course and who are now back in society, I am convinced that this is perhaps one of the finest experiments ever authorized by the Minister of Justice. It has proven itself in British Columbia. I should like to ask the minister whether he has received reports of this experiment and if so has he made any analysis of them? Is his conclusion that it would be worth while spending the taxpayers
Supply-Justice
money to have the same experiment conducted in all the penitentiaries across Canada? I believe it would be a successful move to rehabilitate those who have broken the law.
Let me say again that I feel this is one of the finest experiments ever conducted. I congratulate the minister upon it. I believe it has proven itself in the one penitentiary to such an extent that it might now be advisable for the department to consider expanding it to include all the penitentiaries in Canada.


Mr. Hahn:: Unlike the gentleman who has just taken his seat, it has not been my privilege to spend a day or two in the British Columbia penitentiary, even though it is in my riding. We are not happy about having it in that particular part of the riding, as the Minister of Justice knows, and that is one of the reasons I am rising at this time. I do wish, however, to commend the minister and the mounted police, as well as everyone else who has anything to do with the administration of justice in this country. I think they are doing an excellent job.
I should like to reiterate what the member for Vancouver East said concerning the experiment in the British Columbia institution. In so far as the effect upon the morale of prisoners is concerned, from all the reports I have been receiving I would say that everything the hon. member has said is completely justified. It appears that the experiment is a success.
However, to return to the removal of this particular prison. Many years ago when the district of New Westminster was a small district, it was decided to build a penitentiary along the Fraser river somewhere between what was then known as Sapperton, and the royal city of New Westminster. Since that time the city has grown rapidly, and it has now reached the point where it is almost impossible for anyone to buy property on which to build a home. The penitentiary, because it overlooks the Fraser river, is situated on property with one of the finest views in the whole of British Columbia. The city fathers of New Westminster have indicated from time to time that they wish to have the penitentiary moved. I should like to draw to the minister's attention that if it is possible to have a long-range program in connection with this matter of building penitentiaries certainly one of the first areas to be given consideration should be the New Westminster area. The penitentiary should be moved, let us say, to the Agassiz area, which I understand is desirous of having it, or in some other district that desires it.

Supply-Justice


Mr. Nesbitt:: It has been suggested many times in this house during this session that the minister ought to hold a conference with the attorneys general of the various provinces with respect to the very urgent matter of death on the highways. At this moment I certainly do not propose to deal with that matter. I feel it is a very good suggestion, and the reasons for it have been set forth many times. If such a conference is held by the minister, there is a problem that I think should be on the agenda for consideration, and if such a conference is not held perhaps the minister might consider introducing appropriate legislation to deal with the matter.
The matter with which I wish to deal for a few moments is bicycles and the riders thereof. I am not concerned with adults who ride bicycles. I do not believe that is a matter for proper consideration. Bicycles are here to stay, and adults have to ride them to get to work. It is true that in certain countries, such as England, there are paths on the side of the highway along which adults may ride bicycles. There are certain highways in Ontario, I believe Nos. 400 and 401, upon which bicycles are prohibited. I do not propose to deal with the matter of adults riding bicycles. I am concerned with children who ride bicycles.
I fully realize that the matter of licensing bicycles, and the way they must be lighted, is the concern of the province. I do not wish to touch on that at all. The state is concerned, however, with the welfare of its children. Parents are supposed to be able to look after themselves, but they are also supposed to look after their children. Occasionally we find situations in which parents are not as careful of their children as they might be. In such a case the state has to step in.
Now, the bicycle is a vehicle which arrived before the automobile, and probably for that reason legislation in this respect has not been introduced. I am told, I do not know from personal experience, that 50 years ago there were very few cars on the highway. We had nothing like the traffic situation we have today. Consequently, whether the people who rode bicycles were 50 years of age or ten years of age made little difference. Today, the picture is quite different. Our highways are covered with cars moving at high speeds and with great power. More people own cars in Canada today than ever before. Traffic congestion on our highways, as we all know without going into detail, has become appalling and conditions in the cities are even worse.
Let us compare the bicycle with the automobile for a moment.


William Alfred Robinson: I wonder whether the hon. member would indicate whether he is dealing with a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Justice.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I certainly am, Mr. Chairman. The Department of Justice can pass regulations affecting the person, not the vehicles, and it is to that I am directing my remarks. I am using a bit of background material to illustrate my point. It was recognized at an early date that people had to reach some degree of adult maturity before they were issued licences to drive motor vehicles, inasmuch as they were considered dangerous objects when driven at high speeds, and perhaps by persons without good judgment.
A bicycle is also a vehicle, albeit a human-driven rather than a power-driven vehicle. As I am going to show, a bicycle is just as great a menace when driven by a person without mature judgment as is an automobile. Children ranging from six to nine years who ride on the highways or other widely used public thoroughfares constitute a great menace not only to themselves but to the drivers of automobiles. It is my feeling that the minister should look into the matter as to whether or not children below a certain age-possibly sixteen years or fourteen years -should be prohibited from riding bicycles. I know there would be a great outcry if little Johnnie were to have his bicycle taken away from him, but I do insist that at the present time bicycles ridden by young children constitute a great menace.
I imagine most hon. members drive automobiles and have met with this problem. I do not need to give examples. I could say that only last week in my own constituency a horrible accident occurred resulting in the loss of two young lives. Apparently the question as to who was at fault is very much in doubt.
Only the other day when driving to Ottawa from Hull on the narrow interprovincial bridge a small boy who could not have been more than eight or nine years of age, and with an even smaller boy on the handlebars, was weaving in and out of traffic. Finally he fell off, and the smaller one with him. It was only by great good fortune that both of them were not killed instantly.
I do not think I need to say more on the subject, because any automobile driver knows exactly what I mean. In addition to the personal risk involving the loss of life of these young children, there is also the .further fact that indirectly they cause other motor accidents. I am sure many hon. members have had occasion hastily to put on their brakes to avoid hitting a small child on a bicycle weaving in and out of traffic, or passing on

the wrong side. Sometimes these young children ride down the street three or four abreast. They cannot help being a menace to traffic, and also to themselves.
The statistical material-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I dislike very much raising a point of order, but I really believe the subject matter which my hon. friend is discussing is clearly not our concern here, unless his proposal would be that we should make it a crime for certain persons to ride a bicycle. Since we have the power to pass laws making certain acts crimes that is the way we would have to do it. However, I believe most provinces have municipal acts under which the municipalities are empowered to pass bylaws regulating the riding of bicycles. And it is much better that they should pass such laws, because there would be many municipalities in which bicycle traffic would represent no hazard at all, while in others it would represent a great hazard. Each municipality should have the law which best suits its needs. With all deference to my hon. friend, I do not think it is a matter which comes under our jurisdiction here.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I quite agree with the minister, that there are other considerations of which account must be taken. But I do point out that legislation could be introduced by the minister which would make it a criminal offence for a person of, let us say, under fourteen or sixteen years of age to ride a bicycle, f am only advocating that the minister examine the subject thoroughly.
He has just brought up the interesting point that in the backwoods areas, where there might be little traffic, there is no menace presented either to the child riding the bicycle or to automobile drivers, but that the situation is quite different in the more heavily populated areas. I am bringing up the point so that it can be considered, as I thought I had made clear at the beginning of my remarks.
If the minister has no objection I shall take only a moment to conclude what I have to say, by placing on record certain statistical information which, I might add, is not of much help to us.


An hon. Member:: Why give it, then?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The statistical information is not of much help to us, and if a conference is held I would hope that the minister would try to obtain further information. I feel this is a very important subject.
Figures from the Canada Year Book indicate that in 1950 there were 55 persons killed while riding bicycles in Canada-and these figures are exclusive of Quebec. There appear
Supply-J ustice
to be no traffic figures available for that province. In 1951 there were 55 killed, and in 1952 there were 52. However, the figures for injuries are somewhat different. In 1950 there were 1,656 persons injured while riding bicycles in this country-again, exclusive of Quebec. In 1951 there were 1,673 and in 1952 there were 1,874, showing a steady increase.
There has been no breaking down of these figures into age groups and, as I said before, the figures do not include Quebec.
As I suggested earlier, perhaps the minister might look into the problem and discuss it with the attorneys general of the provinces. It would be a step toward the saving of young lives, would prevent injury and also prevent the snarling of traffic on our increasingly crowded highways and thoroughfares.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Mr. Herridge:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I have been most patient. I had intended to talk on this item for two or three minutes about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but inasmuch as that subject has been discussed by several speakers, I shall make my remarks brief.
I might tell the minister that as a boy I had a very dim view of the Royal North West Mounted Police, as it was then known. I was in the woods fighting with a boy friend of mine, when a man who claimed to be a member of that force came along, arrested me and locked me up in the small wooden jail, in a room about 10 by 16. I was let out that evening and was thoroughly indignant, as you can understand.
A friend of ours owned a beautiful ranch, and lived within 10 miles of us. He had gone to Nelson for some time. This same self-styled police officer took another English settler out to that ranch, sold it to him, obtained his down payment and then left the district. Shortly thereafter we found he was not a member of the Royal North West Mounted Police, and naturally our opinion of the police force changed.
I listened with keen interest to what was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I am sure those cases must be very few and far between. I know the minister will investigate thoroughly and give the results of the investigation to the house. I must say my experience for a good many years has been one of increased respect for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I have found them to be officers and men showing courtesy and tact. Since I was a boy I have known a number of inspectors, officers and members of the force. I served overseas with

Supply-Justice
some of them, and have always been very much impressed by their impartiality and the high grade of their work. In my opinion their efficiency, courtesy and fairness has been demonstrated in my district on several occasions.
A most difficult situation arose in connection with the transportation of the Japanese to the interior. Most of them came to the Kootenays. The matter was handled efficiently and with courtesy. Every consideration was given to human feelings, and every sympathy was shown for these unfortunate people who were moved into that district at that time. Then, during the policing of those camps, there was nothing but general commendation of the attitude of the officers and men in charge of that work. The most interesting illustration is the occasions when the R.C.M.P. have been called in to deal with the Sons of Freedom. I think that is a test of discipline, of efficiency, of tact and of great forbearance under extreme provocation. When you come to handle anywhere from 100 to 300 or 400 naked Sons of Freedom you have an unusual problem from a police point of view, and a problem which puts the police under such circumstances under great provocation. I have personal knowledge, Mr. Chairman, of the very efficient and humane way in which the R.C.MP. handled several very difficult and tantalizing situations.
Previous to the remarks of the speakers concerning the R.C.M.P. I had intended to rise principally to point out also that their fairness, their impartiality and their knowledge of their responsibility to the people of Canada as a whole was well demonstrated on April 28 of this year when two R.C.M.P. constables stopped General Foulkes in a car, in which was sitting the Minister of National Defence, because the car failed to have the necessary licence plates. I have heard appreciation of that action expressed by a number of people whom I have met since then and during the last week, as I have just returned from opening one of the most important airports in Canada. This action on the part of the two R.C.M.P. constables indicates very clearly to the Canadian people that neither rank, prestige nor position is a defence against the law. I think it also indicates very clearly that the civil power in this country, those forces that are given the duty to administer the law, are still supreme, and I would suggest to the minister, as it has been suggested to me by persons who have discussed the matter with me, that those two constables deserve commendation from their senior officers for their impartial attitude in such circumstances.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Just before this item passes I should like to ask the minister two or three questions. Perhaps I could wait until the particular item comes up, but then I am always up against the proposition that I should have asked it before. Some weeks ago an item appeared in the London Free Press dealing with thievery at Camp Ipperwash. The item in the Free Press went on to state that civilians were stopped on the street of a town near Camp Ipperwash and that allegedly stolen goods were taken from those civilians right on the street. That seemed to me to be a rather unusual procedure. Since that time there has been a rather ominous silence as far as the newspapers are concerned. I have not heard anything more about it. Under what statute did the R.C.M.P. act in a case like that? What report, if any, has the minister regarding this alleged offence at Camp Ipperwash and the apprehension of civilians in those towns adjacent to the area? What action, if any, has been taken against the wrongdoers? Have any charges been laid? What happened in the matter? Personally, as far as I am concerned, from any experience that I have had with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, their work has been efficiently done, and I am just bringing this up because of the interest many of my constituents have in the articles that appeared in the newspaper at that time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What was the date of that seizure?


Harry Oliver White: I could not tell the minister but I will find it out for him.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend could get the date and particulars then I would have to make inquiries and find out what the basis was. There may have been a search warrant to seize these particular articles, but of course at the moment I do not know as to that. If my hon. friend will get the particulars I can find out for him.


Harry Oliver White: I shall be glad to do that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: While I am on my feet I might clear up two other points that were raised by the hon. member for New Westminster about moving the British Columbia penitentiary from New Westminster to Agassiz. The difficulty here is that it would cost at least $10 million to replace that same penitentiary in a new location, and the salvage value of the present plant would be practically nil except for the land. So, as I have already informed my hon. friend by letter,

the prospects of that sort of project being taken care of in the near future are not very great.
With regard to the Dale Carnegie course in British Columbia penitentiary, I wish to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for the very complimentary and I think truthful testimonial he gave concerning it. He will be glad to know that in another one of our penitentiaries on the opposite end of Canada, the Dorchester penitentiary in New Brunswick, they have had two Dale Carnegie courses with very gratifying results.


Mr. Campbell:: I have a question for the minister. Has the minister investigated the case of the thirteen-year-old boy who was incarcerated in the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary about a year ago?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I did. I investigated it by writing to the solicitor general of the province of Quebec. If my hon. friend is interested I would be glad to show him, or read into the record if necessary, the solicitor general's explanation of it which we found to be, under all the circumstances, satisfactory.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Is the boy still there?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, he is still there and will remain, I am afraid. Perhaps I had better read this letter, which will explain the reason why he is still there. The commissioner of the penitentiaries came to me about this boy. He was very much disturbed, as I am sure anyone would be, that he had been presented to the penitentiary and was there. There was an irregularity with the warrant of commitment, and he refused to receive him on that account and turned him back. Of course that defective warrant could easily be cured, and in the meanwhile I telephoned to the solicitor general of Quebec. This is the letter I got back in reply. It is dated October 24, 1953, and addressed to myself from Quebec. The letter follows:
Dear Sir:-
Unfortunately, I did not get the information concerning the two cases about which you spoke to me over the phone yesterday on time to call you back yesterday afternoon. I tried to reach you this morning, and I understand that you will be at your office only on Monday. I take the liberty of writing you today, and I will call you again on Monday when, I hope, you will have this letter on hand.
The cases of these two young kids, in my opinion, should be treated differently.
First-
And then he gives the name which I do not think I should read into the record. I continue:
First-this young boy has been sentenced to two years in penitentiary on the 28th September, 1953, for assault. His record convinces me that he is a
Supply-Justice
bad character, vicious, homosexual and that it is not possible to entertain any hopes for his rehabilitation in one of our reform institutions.
His father and mother are separated since nine years. The father lives in Montreal, and apparently does not take care of his son. The mother is a prostitute and of a very low character.
In 1948,-was placed in one of our protection schools at Levis. He was then charged with indecent assault. He escaped from that institution and continued to commit these assaults on other children, boys and girls, even with his young brother. On the 10th June, 1949, he was sentenced to five years to the reform school. From there, he went to an insane asylum to undergo treatments, and he went back home.
On the 9th December, 1952 he was again sentenced to reform school for theft, and went to our institution at Mont St. Antoine in Montreal, from where his mother succeeded to get him out on the 17th May 1953, in spite of the refusal of the director of the institution. Blank escaped and went as far as Saskatchewan from there he was brought back by the R.C.M.P. in August, 1953. He then re-entered the reform school at Mont St. Antoine. He escaped again from that institution and went back to Chicoutimi. Arrested in Quebec for vagrancy, he appeared before the juvenile court and was then interned in another reform institution from where he again escaped and he then went back to Chicoutimi where he committed an assault with bodily harm on the person of his grandmother. He was then sentenced to two years in penitentiary. It appears to me that there is no danger that the atmosphere of the penitentiary is liable to have a bad effect on his moral character. I would rather think that Blank may have a bad effect on those who are already there.
ah mis case,
.	.. ,	- uu nut ininK mat the sentence
should be disturbed. This boy is a danger for the community, and apparently our reform institutions for young boys do not succeed in preventing him from escaping.
Under the circumstances with a proper warrant it is pretty hard with our responsibilities to reject the custody of this young lad, although I am sure I express the views of all of us here that so far as our penitentiaries are concerned generally we would very much prefer not to have young people in them at all below an age much older than that of this young boy.


John George Diefenbaker: How many are there?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not a very large number.


Mr. Nicholson:: Was this the young lad
about whom the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam inquired?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I think that is the one.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: That does not sound the least bit like the boy that I saw in the penitentiary, and it does not compare with the report the officials of the penitentiary gave us when we were there. In fact, they told us that the boy had been sent there as a monster, but they took the opposite view. They said the boy was a nice boy, a good boy, and a well behaved boy.

Supply-Justice


An hon. Member:: Perhaps they wanted to get rid of him.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: That is the report we
received from the officials of the penitentiary. Perhaps they did not tell the whole story. Is the minister certain this is the 13-year-old boy? Or is there one besides the boy mentioned last spring? There is only one 13-year-old, as far as I know.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is the boy in question.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I would like to corroborate what my colleague for The Battlefords has said, and I am sorry the minister has not a report from his own officials. Is this a report from the attorney general of the province?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, not the attorney general, the solicitor general.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Well, I am sorry the minister has not a report from his officials at St. Vincent de Paul. Like the hon. member for Vancouver East, I spent one day in the penitentiary-a day at St. Vincent de Paul with some of my colleagues-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Pity they did not lock the doors.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -and I am happy to say that I got out again. But while I am on my feet I would like to congratulate the minister on the splendid work being done at the federal training school and at the penitentiary too.
The St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, built before confederation, was originally designed to hold 400 criminals and they now have 1,200 within its walls, so it is very crowded. The federal training school is designed to give these young chaps under 25 a new start in life and I would like to speak very highly of the personnel both in the penitentiary and in the federal training school. We visited both and I wish the minister would get a report from the officers of the federal training school where this 13-year-old lad is.
This young boy happens to be the same age as our son at home and I just cannot believe that he is the villain that this report indicates. I agree that the parents have had a very bad record, and it is my view that society should be judged for the environment in which this young boy has lived. Apparently he has done a lot of travelling, and I believe is threatened with t.b. While I was there he asked for the privilege of demonstrating his scooter to the visitors. The convicts at the training centre were playing volley ball in the recreation centre and this young lad came out with the scooter which had been

presented to him by the officers and staff. He shot in and out among the players and appeared to be a likeable boy.
I think he is probably in a much better environment in the federal training centre where he has good food and friends who are trying to help him. It is their hope that they may be able to find a home for him. I wish some married couples in this country who have had the misfortune of not having children in their homes could see this young lad as we saw him there. He is a favourite with the members of the staff and they would like to see him given a better chance than the prospect of having to spend the rest of his life in the penitentiary.
I would ask the minister to get a report from the officers in the federal training centre on this particular case for I am sure that report would show a wide discrepancy compared with the report the minister put on the record.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the various words of criticism and praise that have been applied to the R.C.M.P. and I am not going to make any extended remarks along that line.
I have a very high regard for the R.C.M.P. Those members of the force whom I have known and with whom I have had anything to do have been gentlemen and have attempted to do a real good job. I believe the historic tradition of the R.C.M.P. still lives on.
Of course, we have got to recognize that there is a difference in the constitutional make-up of all men and that includes policemen. You find some who are pretty abrupt and have perhaps the police complex, but you find others who are very courteous and chummy.
I recall on one occasion I was driving at night and suddenly in front of me I saw a flashlight going on and I thought I had better stop in case there had been an accident. I stopped and it was not long before an R.CM.P. constable came up to my window. I pulled the glass down and he more or less bellowed into my ear, "Where is your driver's licence?" I was a little taken aback, but I held my composure a bit and I said, "Why, it is in my pocket." He said, "Let me see it," and I said, "Well, I will if you say 'please'." And that took him aback a little bit and I had a little more time in which to recompose myself. I said to him, "I will tell you what I will do. I will let you see my card and I will be pleased to show you my driver's licence if you ask nicely for it." I added, "There is such a thing as common courtesy."

I gave him my card with my name on it and he walked around my car and came back again and he was writing something down. I fancied he was writing down the licence number, and I put my car into low gear and began driving slowly away. Then I put it in second gear and it was not long until I was away. He never saw my driver's licence. I rather expected that I might receive a subpoena to appear in police court the next day, but I never received one. I just say that I do not think that is particularly characteristic of our R.C.M.P. However, there is a difference in their make-up. We cannot expect them to be smiling at all times although, when they have a little job to do, it is nice if they are pleasant. Mr. Chairman, I did not rise necessarily for the purpose of saying that, although I want to go on record as saying and believing that the R.C.M.P. for the most part are an extremely commendable force.
I rose particularly, Mr. Chairman, to bring to the attention of the minister something that I know he must be greatly concerned about. The background of what I have to say originates in the case of a young man who, not so long ago, committed a murder, was sent up for trial and was sentenced to be hanged. He was a young man just 18 years of age. Fortunately-I fancy fortunately; in some people's view, fortunately-the remission branch commuted his sentence to life imprisonment. The whole case caused a tremendous stir throughout this nation, particularly in the community in which the crime was committed and the trial was held. Much publicity was given to the case by press and radio, and I followed it with a good deal of interest. It seemed to me that the whole case was one involving what today we commonly term the problem of juvenile delinquency. I know that the minister has a tremendous job on his hands, but this matter is becoming a serious problem not only to this nation but also to other nations. I refer to this sort of hoodlum gang of teen-agers who seem to roam our streets and thrive on wickedness. I assert that they are no good to anyone and that they are really a blot on our society. The case I mentioned gave rise to a good deal of comment and a good deal of extremely sound editorial comment. I want to congratulate the press on their editorial comments. They brought out some fine suggestions and observations not merely with respect to the case itself but with respect to the whole matter of juvenile delinquency.
I have been greatly interested in this subject for a good many years because I have had some little experience in directing and running boys' summer camps; and I have taken a course or two in the study of youth 83276-347
Supply-Justice
and related subjects of that kind. I used to hold that there never was such a thing as a bad boy. But sometimes, in my problems, my mind would wander and I would begin to take a different position altogether and to conclude that there never was such a thing as a good boy. Be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, the basic problem of juvenile delinquency is there. We can talk all we like about punishment and about the punitive angle in relation to our criminal law and yet ignore the influences leading up to the crime that juvenile delinquency can be charged with.
There must be some basic reason for the problem. I know that the minister is just as greatly concerned about the problem as is anyone else. After all, he is responsible for the administration of justice throughout the country. Basically, I think the problem can be stated in this way. There is a disregard for the eternal concept which has been true throughout human history-the concept, in fact, that cannot be escaped-namely that a man is a responsible being, responsible to his fellow man and to his Creator and Judge. I have no use for this mollycoddling of young people whenever they do that which is wrong.
My friend the hon. member for Vancouver East stated this afternoon that he was glad to see that we were coming to a time when we were doing away with the punitive angle of our whole concept of administering justice in respect of crime. I do not know that I altogether agree with him in that particular statement. At least I am not glad. We may be getting away from the punitive principle in relation to crime. However, he did not state that at the same time crime was on the increase. I agree with him in a good deal that he said. I agree that in the rehabilitation of criminals there must be something more than simply punishment. However, I am still just old-fashioned enough to believe what Solomon said about sparing the rod and spoiling the child. Yet I am a family man and am extremely proud of my family and of the way they have turned out. However, that is neither here nor there.
I know the problem must give the minister some concern because we read in the papers not long ago what was said by a commissioner appointed, I believe, by the Quebec government. I think that is so, although the newspaper report does not say so. I will read it to the minister. It is headed "Too Many Youth in Penitentiaries" and reads as follows:
Too many Canadian teen-agers are feeing sent to prison, the federal penitentiaries commissioner says in his report for the year ended March 31 last.
Commissioner R. B. Gibson said in his report to parliament-
I fancy he means to the legislature.

Supply-J ustice


An hon. Member:: Parliament.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps the minister will correct me there. The article continues: -that, of the total penitentiary population on March 31, 564, or 11-4 per cent were under 21 years of age.
One boy of 13 was doing a term,-
That evidently is the one referred to a little while ago.
-seventeen others were under 16 and forty-eight were 16. Major General Gibson lamented the fact that so many Quebec youngsters were being sent to jail. "The continuing committal of youths of 14 to 18 is a matter of grave concern. Too many youths are being sent to the penitentiaries for lack of an adequate number of provincially operated reformatory institutions. Probation is not being used to the extent possible as an alternative to incarceration."
I read that because I know the minister must be concerned with the situation, but nevertheless I still maintain that the more important thing is that there must be influences leading up to the point where there is such a thing as juvenile delinquency. I know the minister's problem is one of administration of the law after crimes have been committed, and I am talking about something else for which I can hardly make him responsible.
The reason I rise on this occasion is to put forth something that is of tremendous interest to me, and I am just wondering if he has considered whether his administration can be correlated with other organizations throughout the country, municipal, provincial and so on, that are doing their best to obviate juvenile delinquency. What I have in mind is this. We have often heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare say that his department is very much concerned with preventive medicine. That is good. We often ask him what he is doing in connection with the health of the nation and he says that he is interested in preventive medicine. I think we should ask the Minister of Justice to what extent his department might be able to exercise influence in preventing crimes rather than spending so much time and energy in administering the law after crimes have been committed.
There are several matters that I think I might refer to under this head. Not so long ago Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, who is Britain's home secretary and is charged with enforcing the law and bringing criminals to justice, made a speech in which he gave a number of reasons for the phenomenal increase in crime during the last decade. He had this to say:
There used to be a feeling in regard to the ordinary unimportant aspects of life that when one did wrong it was an offence to God as well as an unpleasant thing to do. It is vitally important that there should be the recognition that crime is

wrong in the moral sense and that punishment is deserved. This view is often absent from the minds of those who come before the courts.
The problem which most impresses me is this: Can we, in the second half of this lunatic twentieth century into which we have been born, make the spiritual stature of man at least approximately commensurate with the scientific advances for which he is responsible? If we can, the hopes of changing a mad century into a sane one are enormous.
The same gentleman, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, said that there were perhaps four things that are responsible for juvenile delinquency in particular, and I know that the minister cannot control them. He said that the first one is the lack of parental control. I am afraid that he put his finger on a vital spot. I believe our parents have got to indicate to their children that when they do wrong punishment is sure. Personally I have no use for all this talk which I label a sort of quack psychology. The second cause to which he referred is the increasing problem of broken homes which contributes to juvenile delinquency. The report the minister read concerning the 13-year-old boy indicated that he has the background of a broken home. The third point, said Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, is that false values are propagated by motion pictures and the modern pulp literature. I want to dwell on that for a moment because here is where I believe the Minister of Justice and his department can be of some help.
I know they claim to have no jurisdiction over the censorship of motion pictures, but there is no question in my mind that motion pictures as they are shown on the screen today have a tremendous effect upon our juveniles. Television is now beginning to come into its own in Canada and if it is permitted to go to the same lengths in what it portrays I rather despair of the juveniles of the coming generation. If I had my way, Mr. Chairman, I would not permit a hold-up scene to be shown in a motion picture theatre. If I had my way I would not permit guns to be fired in any scene shown in a motion picture theatre. I would not permit murder to be shown. Neither would I permit a drinking scene. Some people may scorn that view-


Mr. Blackmore:: But you are right just the same.


Ernest George Hansell: -but the proof of the pudding is in what is happening. That is the proof. The modern motion picture is largely responsible for what youngsters learn about these things. When people are grown up and are mature, sensible and stable the situation may be a little different. Certain motion pictures are advertised as adult entertainment and some of the teen-agers

say: This is going to be juicy, we will go to see it. These are things that have to be faced, and I say that we must tackle this problem from the standpoint of the influences that lead up to the commission of crime.
We do not have to go very far from this building to see the results of the hoodlum gang. Go to some of the restaurants and drop in for a pot of tea at the time when young people are leaving the dance halls and the "pubs". I have done that. I like a pot of tea before going to bed, and I can tell you that on one or two occasions I actually have been frightened enough to leave the restaurant. On looking around outside I was not able to see a policeman anywhere. Perhaps they know what is happening and they are around the corner somewhere out of sight. You do not have to go far to see the results of what I call the hoodlum gang.
There is another cause responsible for juvenile delinquency, the lessening of the power of religion-


John Horne Blackmore: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: -in the ordinary affairs of life. I do not say this because of my profession. I think it is common sense that if any boy-or girl-is brought up to believe that he is responsible to his fellow men and to his Creator, and that crime is punishable, and is taught to respect the great moral principles of life, he will have before him the greatest deterrent to crime that could be devised. However, I am afraid that is seriously lacking.
I am not going to talk tonight as though I were talking to a conference of preachers, because I know I am not. Believe me, if I were talking to a conference of preachers on this subject, I would give them hell.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Ernest George Hansell: I am rather hard on preachers. I believe they have a real job to do. There are too many soft soapers instead of facing right up to the real facts of life. There is too much mollycoddling of that which is wrong, and countenancing of that which is wrong by saying they do not mean any harm. Let us not kid ourselves.
Now, Mr. Chairman, those are some of the things which I believe are lacking in our social life today. I come now to the main point. I should like to ask what the government can do about it. Well, I think they could do a lot about it. I do not know that I want to focus the responsibility for this on the Minister of Justice. Perhaps he will say that is someone else's department. I believe that this government should bring 83276-347J
Supply-Justice
into existence throughout this country great recreational institutions, parks, and so on. They could be put into operation with trained young people as leaders, men and women who are expert along that line. It is done in a very small and modified way by some municipalities, but I believe it could be done to a greater extent. There is need for youth leaders to go out and create in young people today a real regard for the moral principles of life.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think the hon. member will agree with me that perhaps I am entitled at this time to ask him if he will please get back into the Department of Justice.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with you, but I do not agree with those who applauded you. There is one other point I should like to mention. I do not know whether or not it is possible for the Department of Justice to introduce any particular law of this kind. They may say that it is outside their jurisdiction altogether. I am a great believer in the curfew. I am a great believer that young people should be home at a proper time. I am a great believer that the place of young people at night is in the home. Some of our smaller municipalities have the curfew, and I think it works well. I do not know whether the Minister of Justice agrees with that, but I should like to have some expression from him as to whether his department has seriously considered some method whereby they could synchronize their work with the various organizations throughout the country to curb, so far as possible, this thing which is becoming, as we must recognize, a menace to our social life and to our country; this thing we call juvenile delinquency. I feel the minister should answer that question and tell the committee just what he thinks can be done.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sure many members of this house sitting here tonight must have been shocked, as I was, to hear some of the words which have just been spoken. I think it is a great pity that the vast majority of devoted and earnest clergymen in this country should have been maligned by an ex-colleague, whose associations have apparently been most unfortunate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
163. Remission service, including $10,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by treasury board, $137,276.
Mr. Dinsdale:: I notice there is provision in this item for $10,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies. Tonight I have been

Supply-J ustice
listening with interest, in some cases, to a discussion of the situation prevailing within prisons and penitentiaries. Many tributes have been made to the improvements that have taken place in these institutions since the end of the war. I would agree heartily with those statements. It has been rather interesting to hear the several members confess their respective criminal records so far as contact with prison institutions is concerned; that is all to the good, I am sure, because open confession is good for the soul.
I, too, have some confession to make. I belong to the pre-Archambault report group of folk who were associated with prisons and penitentiaries in this country. I know that there is now a vast difference in the internal atmosphere as compared to the years 1938, 1939 and 1940, when I went in and out of several penal institutions in this country. I do not want to emphasize that particular aspect of the problem; that progress is excellent. I should like to say, however, that good institutional care is of little value unless some attention is given to the matter of after-care, the very crucial period in the experience of a prisoner when he is trying to re-establish contact with the community.
You can house him in a palace, you can subject him to all the remedial programs that there are in the book of modern penology, but unless something is done to soften the shock of readjustment to the outside world then there is great possibility that the improvement in conditions in the institutions will be wasted. We are all aware that particularly servicemen, who spent four or five years in some branch of the armed forces, had to pass through a rehabilitation program. Life in the services was so unique, cutting them off from regular society, that considerable sums of money were spent in helping the servicemen to readjust themselves to society.
I think the same problem faces the prisoner who has spent a period of time in one of the penal institutions. First of all, he becomes somewhat of an institutionalized personality who has been subjected to a more or less rigorous routine, and who has been suddenly projected into the outside world to fend for himself, and who often finds such adjustment very difficult indeed.
From my three years' active work in this field I found that the real problem of the prisoner begins after discharge. He is not too badly off when he is under institutional care. But upon release he faces for the first time the social stigma of being branded as someone who has served time. This confronts him first of all in hunting for a job. A good many prisoners find it almost impossible to

re-establish themselves in civilian occupations, because as soon as their prison records become known to prospective employers, their chances of obtaining work are gone. I would point out that because of this stigma which attaches to penal servitude, even the Canadian civil service will not employ a discharged prisoner. I know that on many occasions we could not find' employment for discharged prisoners in ordinary positions. This was in the early days of the war. We arranged a scheme whereby we contacted farmers out west who would accept responsibility for one of these discharged prisoners until such time as he could fend for himself in the labour market. In most cases the only chance of securing employment was where it was possible for the agency working in the field of prisoner rehabilitation to make contact with a sympathetic employer who understood the circumstances and was willing to co-operate in helping a prisoner make a successful readjustment to society.
There has been much comment this evening on the efficiency of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is one of the finest police forces in the world; but I discovered that, although the situation is improving, sometimes municipal police were not too much in sympathy with the after-care problem of the discharged prisoner. If a crime occurred in a local area the municipal police would proceed immediately to investigate thoroughly any of the men in that area who had prison records, and would not be too careful in their approach to the matter. They would approach an employer and reveal that a particular employee had a criminal record, with the result that the employee again found himself foot-loose and fancy free.
This reference to recognized prisoners' aid societies provides an opportunity to discuss this very important problem. There has been some comment to the effect that in Canada we do not use the parole system as widely as possible. Certainly we do not use it to as great an extent as one finds in the United States or even in the United Kingdom. The experience in those countries has shown that wherever possible it is desirable to get prisoners out from under institutional care as quickly as possible, so that they may make a successful readjustment in their communities. Certainly there is no merit in prolonging the period of imprisonment within an institution. Today, when the emphasis is on the remedial rather than on the punitive aspect in the treatment of criminals, the desire is to get the criminal back into society so that he may fill a useful place in the community with his fellow citizens.

There are three private agencies operating in the field of prisoner after-care. They are the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society, and the Salvation Army. I would be interested to know just how far the federal government goes in supporting the excellent work of these private agencies in this very important field. I repeat that the best institutions in the land, equipped with all modern techniques, psychiatrists, psychologists, work programs, and all the other aids, are of little avail unless we can overcome the problem that arises when the discharged prisoner comes in contact with society. It is not his performance in the prison institution with which we are concerned; it is his performance as a free citizen in the broader community.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to answer my question.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am not sure whether I have properly comprehended the main point of my hon. friend's question, but I hope he will correct me if I have not done so. I understood him to be asking what we can do to prevent juvenile delinquency.


Ernest George Hansell: To synchronize the work of your department with that of other organizations in Canada which are attempting to prevent juvenile delinquency.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: So far as the rehabilitation of prisoners is concerned, we can do and we have been doing a great deal. When the prisoners enter a penitentiary they come in contact at once with a classification officer who is a trained psychologist and who, in relation to each one of them, makes out a card index record. He discusses with them their previous history, their family background and aptitudes. He prepares a study of their cases in the same way that a personnel officer does in a large and efficient industry. He keeps in periodical contact with each prisoner during his whole term in prison, and advises him as to the vocational training course he should take. He advises him as to the way in which he can rehabilitate himself after his discharge. He makes contacts with organizations such as the John Howard Society and the Salvation Army, which will provide the after-care about which the hon. member for Brandon spoke. In that way he assists the discharged prisoner to make a successful rehabilitation as an honest man in civilian life.
Our record is a very good one in the matter of the rehabilitation of prisoners who have been in our penitentiaries. The rate of recidivism from our institutions is very much lower than it is from any of the other institutions in Canada, and is improving all the time. But if
Supply-Justice
my hon. friend is speaking about the prevention of juvenile delinquency and crime, the prevention of the coming of prisoners into the penitentiary in the first place, then I think he is dealing with a subject matter which, in almost all of its aspects, is the responsibility of the provinces. Take the matter of the curfew. We have no authority over that, likewise we have no authority over the censoring of the movies; we have no authority over the enforcement of the laws that we pass here with regard to crime comics or obscene literature. It was contemplated when our country was created that the federal government would have all those functions which deal with national matters-defence, banking and commerce and the money supply, the interest rate, interprovincial railway and highway traffic, interprovincial commerce, international affairs and the like. On the other hand all of those matters which related to the individual as a person, education, property and civil rights, and that sort of thing, all local institutions and controls come under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments and legislatures.
The only way in which we can assist in the prevention of crime where it originates in the local communities is by helping the provinces discharge their responsibilities by means of dominion-provincial tax agreements and other like arrangements. By these means we have tried to put every province in Canada in a position to provide a reasonable minimum service under all of those heads, if they wish to do so; but we have no direct contact with or direct responsibility for most of the influences that would have to do with the prevention of crime.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not want to hold up the item, but I want to say a word with relation to the staff of the remission service. In our association with the special committee on capital and corporal punishment, some of us, myself included, have come to realize-others may have already done so-the difficulties of the very important and hard-working branch of the department. I just want to say that I know the minister's difficulties in connection with the staff, particularly the senior staff of that branch. I should like to hear from him what steps are being taken to ensure that this branch and his department generally will be adequately staffed. I know he has difficulties in that regard which we can perhaps help him to overcome. I know the minister's department is rather short of staff at the moment.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item carry?

Supply


Donald Methuen Fleming: Ten o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall begin with the Department of National Revenue, then the Department of the Secretary of State, fisheries, trade and commerce, defence production, legislation and the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Special-
730. To provide for special expenditure in connection with a commission under the Inquiries Act to inquire into the working of the Patent Act, the Copyright Act, the Industrial Designs Act and other related legislation, $25,000.

[Stage Direction]
Department-
162.	Departmental administration (including the former administration of justice-miscellaneous expenditure, including expenses of litigated matters), $427,600.
163.	Remission service, including $10,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by treasury board, $137,276.﻿5495
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 4, 1954