1956-08-13

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the report of the civil service commission respecting certain employees of the parliamentary restaurant, laid upon the table of the house August 10, 1956, be now approved.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 97-Mr. Dufresne:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, relevant to all sales of government properties during the fiscal year 1955-56, in which the total sales price was 25 per cent or less than the original purchase price.
Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member agreed with my parliamentary assistant that this motion should be dropped. Perhaps it could be removed from the order paper today.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion dropped.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, notice of which I have just sent to him. Will the minister tell the house whether or not it is true that from his Calgary income tax office an average of four men each week are working among income tax payers in the Lethbridge income tax area? Will the minister tell the house whether or not it is true that each of those four income tax officials, travelling in his own car at government expense, spends Monday getting from Calgary to the Lethbridge area, and Friday getting from Lethbridge area back to Calgary and actually
works only three days a week but receives pay and expense allowance for five days a week?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have just this minute received the hon. gentleman's questions. The first one is:
Will the minister tell the house whether or not it is true that from his Calgary income tax office an average of four men each week are working among income tax payers in the Lethbridge income tax area?	,	|
I do not know whether it is true but I hope it is true. The second question is:
Will the minister tell the house whether or not it is true that each of those four income tax officials, travelling in his own car at government expense, spends Monday getting from Calgary to Lethbridge area, and Friday getting from Lethbridge area back to Calgary and actually works only three days a week but receives pay and expense allowance for five days a week?
This is not true. I do not know why it would take so long to get from Lethbridge to Calgary and back unless they walk.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, if the minister will read the letter of Mr. Holberton, I think he will find that it is certified there that these things are true.


James Joseph McCann: I did not hear what the hon. gentleman said.


John Horne Blackmore: If the minister reads Mr. Holberton's letter concerning which I have asked him, he will find a statement there to the effect that these things are true.


James Joseph McCann: Yes; but as I indicated a few days ago, I would much rather take the statement of my own officials than that of Mr. Holberton, who was a former income tax employee in Lethbridge.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister might be greatly surprised to find that Mr. Holberton is right.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hayden Stanton (Leeds):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport or in his absence the acting minister. I

Inquiries of the Ministry should like to preface my question by drawing attention to a portion of an article that appeared in the press. It reads:
Hundreds of industrial plant employees were late for work this morning when a C.N.R. train blocked the controversial Perth street crossing for 34 minutes. Legal action may result from the holdup.
My question is, will the minister make a study of the whole rail situation that exists at Brockville with a view to rectifying this situation so the C.N.R. may not be humiliated by further legal action?


Walter Edward Harris: will draw the question to the attention of the Minister of Transport.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the minister of northern affairs or, in his absence, to whatever minister is acting in his behalf. Has the government yet decided whether or not it will go ahead with the plans for the completion of the works for the upper Thames valley authority?


Walter Edward Harris: will do the same, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the continuing statements by Generals Simonds and Macklin would the Prime Minister not consider, even at this late date, the setting up of a special committee-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Borden Hamilton: -which perhaps could be given the power to sit even without parliament being in session, to have these military experts examined under oath in connection with the statements which they have made.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Is the minister in a position to say

now whether the government will be proceeding against the private company in New Brunswick with respect to the matter concerning the destruction of salmon flngerlings?


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: Yes.


Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resfigouche-Madawaska):: Does the Minister of Fisheries not
think he is going too far with all this foolishness about Forest Protection Limited? Why does he not consider the tremendous work they are doing in protecting our forests?


James Sinclair: The opinion of our staff and our legal advisers is that it was negligence when this company, which is partly supported by both federal and provincial government money, did for the third time spray our hatchery. It is on this ground we are taking action against them, in the hope it will not happen again, and to protect the very valuable fishing resources of New Brunswick.


Ralph Byron Horner: Forest Protection Limited is not responsible for this.

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



LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
203. Estimates of the Sergeant-at-Arms, $715,836.
Mr. Green:: These are the estimates having to do with the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms and I believe they include provision for the security police. I should like to ask Mr. Speaker why it is that veterans of Canada cannot be obtained for this job. Veterans preference is supposed to apply in all of the civil service appointments. These men have, as part of their duties, the taking care of the memorial chamber, and yet apparently it has not been possible to keep the force up to strength with veterans. Can the Speaker tell us why that is so, why it is is not possible to get men who served in the forces of Canada to carry on this work? It does seem to me to be setting a very bad example. That is the one place about this building, and perhaps the whole civil service, where veterans should be employed. Perhaps the Speaker could explain just what the situation is.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the situation, veterans are employed for any of the positions that may be available on the House of Commons staff, and that, includes, of course, the positions on the protective staff. We have several veterans on our force at the moment. I have not made a close check of the position but I would imagine that we have more veterans on our

force than personnel that is non-veteran. To my knowledge, every time there has been a vacancy, if a veteran has been found for the job he has always been given preference. I can assure the hon. member and all members that it is always our aim to give preference to veterans and, whenever possible, to hire them. I know there was a case not very long ago where a promotional contest took place, and it might have been felt that a veteran should have had the promotion. But the civil service commission, when it organizes those promotional contests, deals only with the people who have reached the stage where they may be eligible for the contest itself, and it so happened that a non-veteran took the promotion. But when we hire people we always give preference to a veteran.
Of course, if the hon. member has a particular case in mind I would certainly be delighted to look into it but, as I understand it, the policy has always been to give preference to veterans and to hire veterans whenever possible.


Howard Charles Green: Well, from the time that I first came here 21 years ago practically all of the men on the security force have been veterans. After the second world war, veterans of the second world war were added to the staff and after the Korean war some veterans of the Korean war were added, but now the practice seems to be to engage civilians. If Mr. Speaker will check the situation I think he will find that that is so. These men are guiding thousands of visitors around this building, showing thousands of visitors both from Canada and the United States through the memorial chamber and, of course, over the years hundreds of thousands. Surely, if there is one place in Canada where veterans should be employed it is on that particular job. I hope that Mr. Speaker will look into this situation and see what can be done to bring about the result that we have veterans of Canada serving in these jobs.


Mr. Speaker:: I fully agree with the hon. member. I assure him I will look into it.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, it is possible that I should have brought this matter up on item 202. Perhaps I can have the indulgence of the Chair to mention it. Just the other evening there was a telecast from the House of Commons which I understand represented the sixth occasion when various parts of the House of Commons were filmed. I am informed that there are now about six half-hour films available-I do not know in
Supply-Legislation
whose possession they are but since permission for taking the film was given by the Speaker he would probably know.
I have long felt it is regrettable that school children from remote parts of Canada cannot enjoy the privilege of visiting the parliament buildings, this chamber and the Senate chamber, to see how legislation is passed in this country and to see also the beautiful buildings in which our government performs its function.
I am told that these six films which are now available could be made into a one-hour film for a very minor cost, a matter of a few hundred dollars. I wonder if Mr. Speaker would consult with the proper authorities whoever they may be-whether it is the C.B.C. or the national film board-to see if arrangements could be made to have this film produced from the existing films and then distributed or made available to schools and our interested parties across Canada so that if all Canadians are not giver an opportunity of actually seeing these buildings in person they will at least have the opportunity of seeing them on film.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member refer to six films that might have been taken a few years ago by the national film board?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, I think the last in the series was the one taken the other evening in the course of the live telecast from these buildings a portion of which, as I understand it, was filmed in this chamber.


Mr. Speaker:: That would mean that either the C.B.C. or the national film board would have to take some extracts from these various films and make a mounted film. The suggestion was that it be distributed to schools?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I suggest it be made available to schools on request and be advertised to the educational authorities as being available. As I understand it, it is merely a matter of editing to produce a one-hour film from the various short films now in existence.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member seen the six films?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, but they have been telecast.


Mr. Speaker:: If they were to make a mounting of it to make one film out of extracts from six films, would the hon. member consider that a committee of this house should look at the mounted film before it is released?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I have not made the suggestion without having had excellent advice to the effect that it is possible and that the films are appropriate.

Supply-Legislation


Mr. Speaker:: I will be very glad to look into it. While we are on the subject of television I might mention this. In the last two years I have been asked before the opening of the session whether it would be our desire to be televised, that is our part of the opening ceremony, together with the opening ceremony of the Senate, and since the house is always in recess when the request comes to me I have not taken the responsibility of saying yes. Would hon. members go along with that suggestion? I would like to have their advice now.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Chairman, I think it is common knowledge among members of this house and its employees that the existing system by which the rooms are designated, the numbering of the rooms, is extremely confusing and also causes a great deal of inconvenience to people who come to the house for the first time and are looking for the rooms of certain members or various offices they wish to visit. I know from my own experience many people have wandered over almost an entire floor before they could find the office they were looking for.
Perhaps the best example I can cite is that on the fifth floor facing the elevators there is a sign which indicates that you will find rooms 501 to 586 in one direction and that in the other direction you will find rooms 599 to 560. That type of thing indicates that you can find rooms 560 to 586 in both directions simultaneously. It not only indicates the confusion which exists, it indicates the problem for those of us who are not accustomed to going in two directions at the same time as is the government. I wrote to Mr. Speaker earlier this year pointing out this matter of room numbering generally and asking him whether something could be done and also making certain other suggestions. I am wondering what progress has been made in that direction.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion of the hon. member has been studied and an interdepartmental committee is working on it to see what can be done. Other suggestions have come in along the same lines. I think we all recognize that if some improvement could be made it would be most helpful.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
204. Subscriptions to publications of the commonwealth parliamentary association to be distributed to members of the House of Commons, and to provide for the Canadian share of expenses of the commonwealth parliamentary association, $10,000.
Mr. Cardiff:: Does this item cover the
travelling expenses of members attending

the meetings of the commonwealth parliamentary association?


Mr. Speaker:: This item takes care of our contribution to the general council of the commonwealth parliamentary association which amounts to about $7,000, and in return we receive publications. The hon. member has probably received along with others the commentary on foreign affairs which is issued from the office in London along with other publications.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
206. To provide for an allowance to the deputy chairman of committees, $2,000.
John Borden Hamilton: I think this session has proved beyond any doubt the tremendous responsibility which falls upon the deputy chairman of committees. I hope that between now and next session Mr. Speaker will consider recommending to the government that the amount of this allowance be increased to at least $4,000.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree most enthusiastically with the hon. member and I am glad that his suggestion has been so well received by the members of the committee. Not only do I think that there should be an increase in this allowance, I think there should be an additional deputy chairman appointed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE A-Department-
166. Departmental administration, including annual contribution of $200 to the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada, $513,658.
Mr. Nowlan:: Is the minister going to make a statement on the first item?


Mr. Garson:: Perhaps the hon. member was in the chamber when my estimates were first called and I indicated that I had no statement to make on the first item. We then went on to deal with the items of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In that connection I undertook to get for the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich the date of the order in council dealing with northern allowances for the mounted police. I find that that was passed on October 7, 1955. I would suggest, however, that this morning we might start with the estimates of Justice proper, as the commissioner is on his way into Ottawa and will be here later this morning, about an hour from now.


George Clyde Nowlan: This is the first item of the Department of Justice estimates. As the minister says, we have been considering other items in this department prior to this. It is not my intention to take very much of the time of the committee this morning on this first item. Although it is usual to discuss in general the affairs of a department on the opening item, this department is in a somewhat different situation possibly from some other departments, and this is particularly so this year because there have been various commissions that have reported, and the minister, I know, has not had time to deal with those commission reports as yet. I think that perhaps some criticism could be levelled at the minister and at the department for having allowed matters to drift along too long without making reconstructions in the Department of Justice, particularly in so far as penal matters are concerned, to bring the administration more in keeping with modern trends and modern conditions; but this year the minister has, I think, given direct attention to those matters. He has had the Fauteux commission report. There has been the committee from this parliament on capital and corporal punishment, which has been sitting for a long while and which is finally making a report. There is also the matter of insanity as a defence and what part it is going to play in the administration of our criminal law.
All of those things are now, one might say, on the minister's desk, and I presume he will give them all careful consideration. We, at least, of the opposition are prepared to give him time for that purpose Therefore I am not going to spend any great time at all this morning in dealing with those matters, although it is open to any hon. member so to do. Perhaps it could be done more profitably in the next session of this parliament, when the minister will be in a position to advise the house, by statement and, I hope, by legislation, just how much of these reports he is proposing to enact. So we let these matters stand for the moment.
There are one or two matters that I think should be emphasized. The other day I noticed the announcement that the proposed women's jail, or penitentiary-call it what you will-at Collin's Bay has been suspended. I believe that tenders had been advertised for, but I am not sure whether contracts have been awarded, and the matter is now in abeyance pending a conference between
Supply-Justice
the minister's department and the provincial authorities on the administration of criminal law. I can see why that step probably should have been taken. As a matter of fact, as the minister well knows, very strong objection was taken by the Elizabeth Fry society and other associations to the principle of confining all the women in one central penitentiary in Canada. I believe that the practice heretofore has been to have them confined in Kingston penitentiary. For many years they were confined in part of a wing in which men were accommodated as well. Then, in about 1910 or some time after that, a block was added to the south block of Kingston penitentiary, where a certain number were accommodated; and latterly one was built outside the confines of the penitentiary itself. I am told that at times there are something over 100 women confined there, although the number is less than that now, and that half of them are probably drug addicts.
Information from the brief of the Elizabeth Fry society which I have seen points out-in fact it quotes the Minister of National Health and Welfare dealing with the drug addict- that in the matter of treatment we move women here, say, from the west coast and that they are confined in the penitentiary for two years or whatever it may be. Then they are given a ticket home. They get as far as Toronto. They sell the ticket and exchange it for drugs and away they go again.
There is also I think a legitimate criticism because it is difficult, if not impossible, for the families to visit the women that come from the east coast or from the west coast and are confined at some central point. Personally, I am very glad to see that the construction is not being proceeded with at the moment. I would hope that, when the minister has this conference with the provincial authorities, some system can be worked out whereby we can avoid the bringing of women to some central point and locking them up there, as has been the practice heretofore. I think it might be better if arrangements could be made with the provincial authorities so that they could be confined at some provincial institution. It is better for their own rehabilitation and I think it is better for the administration of justice as a whole.
Certainly, on the matter of probation, which is also before the minister, I hope definite action will be taken along that line in the near future. That is something which has been a black eye in so far as the administration of justice in this country is concerned. We have lagged behind other countries not only from the standpoint of rehabilitation, in my opinion, but also from the standpoint

Supply-Justice
of cost as well. In the press last week I noticed a statement by Mr. Coughlan who is, I believe, director of probation for the province of Ontario. Putting it merely on a financial basis, he says this:
To lock a person in the federal penitentiary costs the taxpayer $1,760 a year. To keep an eye on him through a probation officer costs $50.
According to the department figure, it costs $50 a year to have him properly supervised under a proper probation system. Of course, we know that there are cases and cases and that probation may apply to one and not to another. But certainly we should develop that system much further than it has been developed in the past. I also noticed in the press a report by Chief Justice Pickup the other day in which he was dealing with this matter and in which he pointed out the merit of probation and of suspended sentence, and recommended that they be extended much further than has been the case in the past.
This is going to be an interesting year, I think, in so far as this department is concerned. There should be many changes and innovations adopted or at least tried, considered and submitted to this parliament for action another year. When next year comes I am sure that we shall be alert. I will only say this to the minister. If some action has not been taken on these various matters, I think he can expect a careful scrutiny of his department and a critical one at that. We of the opposition feel that it is this year in which these various actions should be taken.
Without letting the minister off with no criticism of the department at all, may I say this. I notice something which I am sure the minister read as well. I am directing his attention now to a little article in the Canadian Bar Review of February of this year by Mr. Bora Laskin a noted legal authority. He discusses-and I think properly so-rather critically the action of the Department of Justice in dealing with the Anaconda American Brass Ltd. appeal. As you will recall, Mr. Chairman, that was an appeal taken by the Minister of National Revenue on a decision of the National Revenue Department wherein our court originally held that the department was not justified in taxing the appellant. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada held that the department was in error and that the taxpayer was right. Then, forsooth, the Minister of Justice-or at least it would be carried by the Department of Justice although I presume on the recommendation of the Minister of National Revenue or his officials-took the case to the privy council. You have the situation whereby

our Department of Justice boasted of the fact that we had thrown off the last vestiges of colonialism and we had established our own supreme court as the paramount court in the land, which has denied to everyone else the right of appeal to the privy council, but yet because there was just a little bit of time left in which, legally, this appeal could be entered, they took the appeal to the privy council, and then forsooth the department went before the privy council. I think that fact puts the Minister of Justice in a somewhat anomalous position when we have this mighty court,-and I am not saying this sarcastically because it is a good court-the court of which he boasts, the court which he described as being our final court and the court which other appellants would not be allowed to go beyond, nevertheless we have this appeal taken to the privy council. I think it would have been much better for the Minister of National Revenue to have dealt with this matter by statute, if necessary, and to have had a statutory change made in the law rather than to have appealed to the privy council and to have had our own supreme court reversed in this way.
There is only one other matter which I would ask the minister to deal with when he speaks. I think he promised a statement on this matter. I may say that it does not come under the first item. He has had the matter before him in dealing with the alleged brewery combine in Canada. He was asked for a report. I understood he said that he was waiting for a report from counsel. I understand that report has been received. I wonder if the minister will tell us at the appropriate time what action, if any, his department proposes to take with respect to the matter.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up any great amount of time but I think that I would be singularly lacking if I did not express my appreciation of the attitude taken by the official opposition and, I believe, by all the members of the opposition in relation to this question of securing proper and adequate penal laws for Canada. This is just another example of the nonpartisan attitude which all of the parties in this house-I think to their own very great credit-have displayed on this matter from the very beginning.
I must say that up until the present time the progress which we have made has been fairly satisfactory and creditable. The other day in Toronto Saturday Night there appeared an article by a police magistrate. I may say it was not written by a man who had the prejudices of a lawyer. It was written by Mr. Haig-Brown who in addition

to being a layman police magistrate is a distinguished writer and who brought to a criticism of these new laws the, shall I say, more unprejudiced viewpoint of a layman, speaking as to how they would affect the people of Canada. This is the way in which he sums up the effort which this house made in revising the Canadian Criminal Code. One of my reasons for quoting this article is that he puts his finger upon what I think is one of the most important features in dealing with a law of this kind in such a way as completely to meet the criticism which has just been made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings who has just taken his seat. This is what Mr. Haig-Brown has to say after having seen the new code in operation for over a year now and having taken part, as a police magistrate, in its administration:
Even at this early stage, I believe it is clear that the new code is simpler, fairer and easier to administer than the old one. I have an uneasy feeling that it is in some respects over-cautious, even timid, in recognizing advances in public thinking and in the changing face of Canada. There is a great deal of room for leadership by the central government in improving both the penal and the court systems of the provinces. It would have been good to have seen, for instance, much sharper recognition of the probation system and of special institutions for younger offenders. The hopelessly antiquated costs system in the magistrates' courts should have been abolished and some sensible alternative established. And it should never be a matter of routine for a Canadian citizen to wait three months for his trial, as must a man I committed on December 2, 1955, for trial at the spring assizes of March, 1956.
If I find fault in these matters, I do so with the utmost respect for the skill and integrity of those charged with the enormous task of revision.
This next sentence I would strongly recommend for the consideration of my colleagues.
A nation's criminal code is no suitable toy for the rebellious or hotheaded, or even for idealists in advance of their times. It is a document founded on the wisdom of hundreds of generations, to be advanced only cautiously, through deep and painful thought and clear experience. To have simplified, clarified and broadened the nation's criminal law so extensively while dropping over 400 sections, without the least sign of failure or dislocation, must be reckoned a major Canadian achievement.
I should like to bear testimony, Mr. Chairman, that that is a Canadian achievement in which all parties in this house, and particularly those serving these special committees, are entitled to their full share. It is only by the non-partisan attitude that was displayed by those members, by this house, and on this present occasion by my hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis-Kings, that this result has been achieved. But I think we should take the same attitude towards these other matters in which we are sometimes criticized for being guilty of some delay. The whole question of what the provisions of the penal
Supply-Justice
law of Canada should be and as to the way in which that penal law should be administered is, I suggest, one which should be an integrated whole. When my hon. friend criticizes us in the Department of Justice for doing the proper thing a little bit late may I, and I shall do it as courteously as I can, repudiate that criticism.
I believe we have proceeded as rapidly as we could having regard to the fact that the subject matter is, as Mr. Haig-Brown suggests, a document founded on the wisdom of hundreds of generations, to be advanced only cautiously, through deep and painful thought and clear experience. I am confident that upon reflection my hon. friend will agree with me this is the proper attitude in which to approach a matter of this kind.
What is it that we have done? We came to the conclusion that there was no purpose in concerning ourselves with reforms which may be made to the code and penal laws of Canada until we had first put those laws in a clear and understandable form. Having regard to the fact that the Criminal Code of Canada had not had a consolidation or overall revision for over 60 years, we conceived that the first step in this deliberate process was to consolidate the code. In this way we would know what the existing law was and have it in clear form so it could be understood by all members of the house and those citizens of Canada who might be interested. Then, having secured that-and it took five years of hard work taking into account the number of years spent by the royal commission, then by committees of the house and the two chambers of the house-we addressed ourselves to the question of those respects in which that law might be reformed. Our intention was from the beginning to cover the whole field of criminal law, criminal law administration and penal reform in Canada.
Now, with that in view and having had the Criminal Code consolidated, we set aside for special consideration by a joint committee of the other place and this house, the subject of capital punishment, corporal punishment and lotteries. We just received a couple of weeks ago the report of that committee.
Then, simultaneously and not in any desultory or accidental manner but quite deliberately, we set up two commissions under Chief Justice McRuer of the high court of justice for the province of Ontario, to deal with two related questions, insanity as a defence to a charge involving criminal responsibility, and criminal sexual psychopaths. We expect that the two reports from those two commissions will become available this fall.

Supply-Justice
We also sent to the Fauteux committee the task of examining the whole field of penal reform in Canada, including on the one hand those important subjects of our own responsibility, remissions and tickets of leave, and upon the certain other aspects which, as my hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis-Kings correctly pointed out can only be introduced by the provinces.
This Fauteux report has now come to hand. Within 24 hours of the time it was received in our department from the queen's printer it was tabled in the House of Commons and at the same time letters went out to the attorneys general of the provinces sending them copies of the report and asking them to consider with their colleagues the position they might take in relation to the recommendations of this report in order that we might later get together and consider the manner in which it could be implemented.
This report has 21 recommendations which can be implemented only by the federal government; four which can be implemented by the provincial government; 16 which must be implemented by both the federal and provincial governments; and three which can be implemented by the courts. In those circumstances it seems to me, and I would ask the indulgence of my colleagues in the house to agree with me in this regard, that the only way that affords any real hope of getting a good law which can be well administered is to carry along with us the judgment of those whose responsibility it will be to administer this law after it is put on the statute books. The British North America Act, paragraph 14, section 92 reads this way, that amongst those matters for which the provincial authorities have exclusive jurisdiction are:
The administration of justice in the province, including the constitution, maintenance and organization of provincial courts, both of civil and of criminal jurisdiction and including procedure in civil matters in those courts.
So that, so far as the criminal law we pass here is concerned, the only way in which it can be effectively administered is by the provincial authorities. As we all know a law is, generally speaking, not very much better than its administration. Our authority here, under paragraph 27 of section 91, is addressed to the criminal law, except the constitution of courts of criminal jurisdiction, but including the procedure in criminal matters.
When we have, therefore, received all of these reports-we are expecting two from Chief Justice McRuer this fall and we already have the report of the joint committee of parliament and the Fauteux committee-we will have the whole field of criminal law and penal administration covered in those
[Mr. Garson.l
reports, other than that which has already been taken care of in the consolidation of the code. We will be in a position, in consultation with the provinces, to lay the whole of this, material before these provincial administrators in the hope of securing the invaluable assistance of the views of these people who have had practical experience in the administration of the criminal law. Without such practical advice 1 do not think that a group of theorists, no matter how able they may be, can produce a really good result.
I mention these things to repel the idea that we have just been drifting along and letting things take their course, and that the reason that we are dealing with these matters now instead of six, seven or eight years ago, is some fault of the Department of Justice. That is not so.
We started our program faced with this fact, that we could not expect to get much co-operation from the provincial governments in the matter of penal reform if we had not to the fullest extent that we could within our own authority put our own house in order by implementing those recommendations of the Archambault report which we could implement. We first implemented those recommendations. Then we set up the royal commission to consolidate the Criminal Code, and as soon as that task was finished we set up those other committees and other commissions. Now, we have all the reports and we are in a position, as a result of a campaign of over eight or nine years, to bring this whole matter to a completion in collaboration with the provincial governments whose advice to us in the matter of drafting the law in the first place is invaluable and whose assistance is completely indispensable in making the criminal code a law which in reality is capable of administration. We cannot get along without provincial cooperation. That is the reason we have adopted the action which we have taken. There has been no delay. The whole matter has moved forward to the present stage as a matter of deliberate planning. If, in the meanwhile, we have not implemented the recommendation of the joint committee with regard, for example, to appeal as of right in capital cases to the Supreme Court, it is because on this particular subject, along with all of these other matters, we think it should properly be discussed with the provincial authorities before we undertake to pass any laws in relation to it here without any prior consideration of it at all by those who will administer it.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I have been very much interested in the remarks of the Minister of Justice. It is not my intention to

hold up this item too long, but there are a few aspects that I would very much like to touch on.
First of all, as far as the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on capital and corporal punishment and lotteries is concerned, I want to agree completely with the minister that in all the years I have sat on committees I never saw one in which there was such an aspect of non-partisanship. Everybody endeavoured to tackle the problem according to the terms of reference. However, sir, we now have on file in this House of Commons the three reports of the joint committee on capital and corporal punishment and lotteries. We have also on file in this house the report of the Fauteux commission that regards parole and ticket of leave, and other aspects of penology. It is obvious that these reports are not going to be considered at this session. I think, sir, that is quite understandable because I agree completely with the minister when he says that there is in all reports not a conflict of jurisdiction but a necessity of co-operation in jurisdictions as far as the federal, the provincial and the judiciary are concerned.
It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that, in addition to what has already been said by the Minister of Justice in the past few minutes, it is his intention in the latter part of this year to call a conference at which all of these reports will be discussed and some agreement reached and upon the results legislation introduced at the next session both from the federal and the provincial level. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that it is impossible to have any speedier action than that. I will say I do not think the minister can do anything else except what he is doing in that regard. However, I do think at this time certain statements should be made.
It was a great privilege for me to be a member of the joint committee for 2J years; but under the committee rules of procedure in the House of Commons a minority report cannot be brought in. I want to make it very clear to the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, that although it was a very good committee and all discussions were on a non-partisan basis, I cannot agree with all the recommendations brought in. I make the very definite statement that in my opinion, some of the recommendations cannot be substantiated by the two years of evidence that came before the committee. That being so, I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister of Justice that while his department is giving consideration to the recommendations that have been made by the various committees and commissions that have now reported, at the same time his officials be told to see whether or not the
Supply-Justice
recommendations can be substantiated by the evidence that was given before the committee. I think that is very important, sir.
I am not going to take the time of the committee to go into any detail but I am going to make this statement as a member of the committee and one interested for a long time in capital punishment. The evidence that was received over two years will not back up the statement of the committee that capital punishment is a deterrent, because all of the evidence from countries that do not have capital punishment compared with those that have shows there is only the slightest variation. It is so insignificant that it should not even be considered as conclusive proof, not only in the countries that have capital punishment, but in the six states of the United States that have abolished it for many years.
The major influence on those who supported capital punishment was the protection of our police officers. Until 18 months ago there was no study undertaken about the position of police officers as between abolish-ionist and retention countries, but a study was made by Professor Thorsten Sellin and the information and findings filed with the committee. The only statistical information ever obtained proves that capital punishment is not a protection for police officers. That is all I am going to say about it, but it is why I hope that in the studies that are now going to be made before the conference is held, I understand sometime in November, they will consider the evidence as well as the recommendations.
I have something in addition to that, Mr. Chairman. Because under the Criminal Code there is still capital punishment in Canada, and there will be for some time, I would like to ask the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, and the Solicitor General and the remission branch to give very careful consideration to how executive clemency is exercised. I know, Mr. Chairman, that the minister, because the remission branch comes under his department and because he knew the committee wanted the fullest possible information, as to how executive clemency was exercised, made a full report that is now a matter of evidence before this house.
Sir, I completely fail to understand, although I have heard the explanation of the Minister of Justice and have re-read the evidence, how a decision is reached, on a logical basis, concerning whether or not executive clemency will be granted. I am not speaking just as a theorist nor am I speaking from emotionalism because I always try to study these matters before I make any statement or recommendation.

Supply-Justice
To me it is most difficult to understand, in view of the information contained in the report which is now a part of the proceedings of this house, how a young man who commits premeditated robbery and premeditated murder can get executive clemency when someone else, with a psychologically bad background, who in the heat of passion and drunkenness shoots his step father, who has told him he will not be permitted to marry his step daughter and is alleged to have raped her, is hanged.
I fail to understand why another person with a bad psychological background who is known as a brutal man and kicks a man to death in a fit of drunken brutality urged on by people around him hangs whereas others -I am not going to mention names at any time-who commit murder in the course of premeditated robbery are given a life sentence.
I am not going to say anything more on that matter except to tell the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, that after a thorough study of all the types of cases I have referred to I quite honestly cannot help but come to one conclusion. I do not like to say this but I am going to say it. I cannot help but wonder whether executive clemency is not based on the flip of a coin; heads you die and tails you live. On no other basis can I make any sense of the exercise or nonexercise of executive clemency as far as a number of capital cases are concerned especially several which occurred in western Canada in the past two years.
Mr. Chairman, I did not like to say that although I felt compelled to say it in order to ask that, until a decision be made by parliament at the next session or at a future session on the question of capital punishment, perhaps a second thought be given to the question of the exercise of executive clemency as to whether a man hangs or gets life imprisonment so that perhaps it will be placed on a more sensible basis as to who lives and who dies as long as we follow the principle that if an individual takes a human life society has the same right in relation to the offender's life.
There is only one other point I want to raise. As I read the report of the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons and the Fauteux report, there are certain aspects or recommendations that do not require legislation and do not entail statutory action on the part of the federal government or the provinces. There are some recommendations especially in the Fauteux report that can be put into effect by regulations under authority that already exists. I have not had an opportunity of

discussing this matter with the minister but I sincerely hope that beneficial recommendations upon which action can be taken without legislative authority will be considered and that he will not wait until the conference is held in November, or whenever it is planned to be held, and that he will not wait until there will be a meeting of the provincial parliaments or the federal house. I think that is a normal and a good request.
Mr. Chairman, in order that I will not be misunderstood I am going to close my remarks with this thought. Criminals cannot and must not be coddled; if they break the laws of society they must be required to pay a penalty. I am not a person who waxes emotional because a person is a criminal; I have just as much feeling toward those who are hurt as toward those who do the hurting, if not more. Experience in modern penology throughout the world has proven that some of the methods used in the past are not the best methods and that those methods, some of which are in use at the present time, are most offensive.
I personally appreciate the studies that have been made under the authority of the minister concerning the question of penology and I believe if Canada can catch up to modern penology we will save not only a number of lives but a great deal of the taxpayers' money.
Just as I changed my mind in the committee more than once, I hope the Minister of Justice will change his mind more than once when considering the report and in undertaking to do what can be done now in the way of following their recommendations; and in checking on his remission branch the reports of which we now depend, although we know the final authority does not come from the remission branch at all.
The minister has a great and a grave responsibility. I look forward at the next session, whether it is before or after an election, to commending the Minister of Justice on the action he takes now that he has the reports in his hands.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if there would be any objection to our proceeding with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police items at this point because the commissioner is here and we have already started on them. This will not take very long and we can then go on with the second item of justice. If the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra wishes to make a few remarks on

item 166 I will have no objection but if we could revert to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police following that I think it would be better.


Howard Charles Green: If the minister wants to carry his first item my remarks could apply to the first item of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police equally, as well as to the item of justice.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May we consider that we are on the first item of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


The Deputy Chairman:: For the benefit of the Chair is item 166 carried?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
Headquarters administration, national police services and training establishments-
396. Administration, operation and maintenance, $6,735,362.
Howard Charles Green: When the minister first returned to the house 1 asked him about the policy being followed this year in British Columbia by the mounted police in refusing to issue permits to prospectors, geologists and men engaged in that type of work for the carrying of revolvers. This question will be found at page 5981 of Hansard of July 16. On that particular day the minister replied that he had run across two or three cases where permits had been refused under such circumstances, but it seemed to him the police had exercised their powers properly.
The following day the minister made a much fuller reply, to be found on page 6053 of Hansard, in which he pointed out that section 90 of the Criminal Code permitted no one to carry a revolver without obtaining a permit. The minister then went on to deal with section 94 which authorizes the issuance of permits. In effect his answer was that it was not the responsibility of the mounted police to decide whether these men should get permits, but that in a province it was the sole responsibility of the provincial attorney general. He suggested rather naively that I should send my question on to Hon. Mr. Bonner who is the attorney general of the province of British Columbia. On checking section 94 which provides for the issuance of permits I find that it reads as follows:
(1) A permit in form 42 may be issued by
(a)	the commissioner or a person authorized in writing by him, or
(b)	the attorney general of a province or a person authorized in writing by him.
That part of the section clearly gives the commissioner of the mounted police or any
Supply-Justice
person authorized by him the right to issue a permit equivalent to the right given' to the attorney general. Each of them is given the same authority. I do not know where the minister gets his backing for the statement that in the province of British Columbia only the attorney general or someone authorized by him can issue a permit. Section 94 goes on to provide:
(4) A permit in form 42 shall be issued only where the person who issues is satisfied that the applicant for the permit requires the firearm to which it relates
(a)	to protect his life or property,
(b)	for use in connection with his profession or occupation.
The next clause (c) is not material to my submission. The first two clauses clearly give the power to issue permits to men' engaged in occupations of this kind. I am told by the British Columbia and Yukon chamber of mines of Vancouver, which is a thoroughly responsible organization which has carried on for many years, that for at least 25 years it has been the practice to issue permits to prospectors and men carrying on activities of that kind. The chamber of mines wrote to Mr. J. R. W. Bordeleau, superintendent, officer in change, C. I. B., Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Victoria. The letter is dated June 4 and reads in part:
The officials of this organization cannot understand the reason why your department has taken such drastic action. For at least 25 years, to my knowledge, prospectors and other such persons have been allowed to carry sidearms in British Columbia and the Yukon Territory.
The letter then goes on to set out the reasons why this has been done, as follows:
1.	In many instances, prospectors who are working in rugged, mountainous country, in isolated areas, must depend on sidearms both for protection and survival, including the shooting of small game for food. In many cases prospectors have used their sidearms for signalling for assistance.
2.	To most prospectors and geologists travelling over long distances, through rugged terrain, weight is a vitally important factor. Some prospectors carry rifles, but others working in particularly difficult areas, cannot afford to carry the extra weight and cumbersome equipment.
3.	Many modem prospectors and engineers, when in the field, carry in their hands other tools that are essential to their profession, such as a prospector's pick, geiger counter, compass, dip needle or magneto-meter for locating ore bodies- steel tapes for running survey lines, etc. In such instances, the sidearm must take the place of the rifle.
We all know that what is set forth in that letter is correct. The chamber received a reply from Superintendent Bordeleau dated June 7, 1956, reading as follows:
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated June 4th, 1956 dealing with the issue of small arms permits to prospectors, mining engineers, geologists, etc.
The points raised in your letter have been carefully and sympathetically considered, but it is

Supply-Justice
pointed out that the issuance of such permits is not merely a matter of this office exercising discretion but rather of issuing such permits strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code.
I suggest that the Criminal Code is wide enough, certainly the section I read, to cover these cases.
It is felt here that while there may be some justification for the arguments set forth in your letter, the law as it stands at present is not sufficiently elastic to allow the issuance of such permits to the category of individuals and for the purposes you mention.
We are at present in correspondence with our headquarters on the matter-
No suggestion that he is conferring with the attorney general.
-with the object of exploring the possibility of suitable amendments being made to the appropriate sections of the code which would, under appropriate conditions, permit the issuance of permits to the type of individual referred to.
It is hoped that in the near future we will be able to communicate with you again on this subject.
Not a word in that letter about the practice of issuing these permits for the last 25 years and not a word about a change having been made this year. I have here a copy of a letter written by a prospector at Ootsa Lake, British Columbia, to Mr. T. Elliott, manager of the British Columbia and Yukon chamber of mines under date of July 16 and reading:
I have talked to numerous prospectors here in the north, all of whom are on the warpath due to the stupidity of someone who evidently has no idea of what he is doing in prohibiting prospectors from carrying pistols while in the hills.
Has this dimwit an idea that prospectors ran around shooting people? Does he realize that with a prospector's pick in one hand, he must have the other free to climb?
He is unable to carry a rifle on that account. Whoever hatched up this stupid idea should be turned loose in a grizzly country and not allowed a gun.
We, the prospectors of B.C., ask that the chamber of mines take up this injustice with the proper authorities and have this law revoked. You can have this letter published if they will print it.
Sincerely yours,
Billy McNiell.
The Vancouver Sun sums up this situation very well in an editorial on June 25, 1956, entitled "Why Pick on Prospectors?":
We do not look for any drop in the crime rate as a result of the decision to deny B.C. prospectors the right to pack pistols. This has the sound of small-bore officialdom.
The average citizen, including the sportsman, has no complaint against Criminal Code restrictions upon the use of pistols and revolvers, the "concealed weapons" as our law classes them.
Prospectors and mining engineers, however, have a special need for hand-guns. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who themselves must often backpack through our wilderness, should be the first to realize it.
Unlike the fishermen, the farmer or the logger, the prospector usually travels alone and by foot.

And always he must travel light. Every additional pound in the packsack is a burden when a man is chopping his way through salal, or slogging it over the rockslides.
The pistol's a skookum tillicum-
That is a British Columbia word.
-to any prospector.
He knows grizzly bears don't attack men-well, not often that is. But there he is, miles away from another human and well, if that bear should be mean that prospector's bones will leach into this hillside before another human is likely to walk this way. Who wouldn't want to feel the comfort, however false a comfort it may be, of a revolver butt in his hands in these circumstances?
Let's remember too that a pistol is handy for popping off rattlesnakes. For example, there's the case of an Osoyoos prospector-
That is in the Okanagan district, as the minister knows, very near the United States boundary.
-who killed 39 rattlers within 100 yards of his claim.
Finally, and perhaps most important, the prospector who treks farthest into our wilderness must depend for much of his food supply upon game-which the law permits him to take under proper circumstances. What can take the place of a pistol for popping off fool hens for the frying pan? Not, we're sure, a three-foot long rifle strapped to that dismally heavy packboard.
We'd suggest a little fatigue drill for the bureaucrat who made this decision. Say, three runs up the side of Grouse mountain holding a pump shotgun above his head.
I have other letters from prospectors, but I shall not read them. I suggest to the minister that he accept equal responsibility for this situation with the Attorney General, as the Criminal Code intended that the commissioner of the mounted police should have the same powers as the Attorney General to issue these permits. There is no point in passing the buck to the Attorney General. The firearm permit is contained in form 42, which says:
This permit authorizes	of
	to have a	
(address)	(insert type of
	elsewhere than in his dwelling
firearm)
house or place of business for the purpose of
(insert purpose for which permit required)
This permit is valid during the period	
Then there could be a limitation on the period for which the permit is good.
I urge upon the minister that he take steps without further delay to see that this situation is remedied. I am sure he will agree with me that it is unfair to make these men go into the hills without permitting them to carry a revolver should they wish to do so. I only regret that most of the present summer has gone by and that these men who are the pioneers of Canada in these modern days are facing this handicap that has been placed on them so unnecessarily.


Mr. Herridge:: I should like very briefly to support the plea of the member for Van-couver-Quadra on this matter because it is a matter of great importance to a number of persons in my constituency, particularly prospectors, trappers, timber cruisers and handicapped persons. The member has outlined the case very well, and there is no necessity for me to repeat his arguments. I support them completely and fully.
I might say, with respect to handicapped persons, that it is impossible for some of these people to enjoy going back into the hills or undertaking trapping, prospecting or cruising without being allowed to carry small arms. In my own case, I had been up to recent years given a permit year after year by the police to carry a revolver because I naturally could not climb a mountain with a revolver in one hand and nothing in the other. I think that applies to a number of people I know. I urge that consideration be given to these very sensible requests of these people who are making a contribution to our country.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am very sorry indeed,
especially in relation to the two amiable members who have just spoken, that I cannot agree with what they are seeking. That does not mean that I am in the least measure unsympathetic toward the prospectors, because I am very fond of outdoor life myself. I have travelled a good deal through the bush, at least enough to appreciate the value that a revolver could be to these prospectors.
However, the difficulty here, as I endeavoured to explain before, is this. Where we have this parliament with the authority to pass the Criminal Code, the provincial authorities with the responsibility for its enforcement, and an agreement as we have with the province of British Columbia under which our police force is made available to the provincial attorney general in order to help carry out their responsibility for the enforcement of the Criminal Code, it would just be monstrous if in that province the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would be attempting to administer at one and the same time the revolver permit policy of the attorney general of British Columbia on the one hand and the revolver permit policy of the federal Department of Justice on the other. This would be a fit subject for a Gilbert and Sullivan opera, not for any situation in real life.
As a matter of fact, the only way in which the taxpayers of this country can have the very great advantage indeed of having one police force act for both the provincial government and the federal government in eight out of the ten provinces of Canada is that
Supply-Justice
we in Ottawa shall be meticulous in respecting the full jurisdiction of the provincial authorities.
If these prospectors' needs are as great as the hon. members have indicated they are, then I cannot for the life of me see why the attorney general of British Columbia, as the head of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in British Columbia in relation to all matters of the administration of criminal law in that province, cannot instruct the police force there, under these circumstances that have been outlined, to grant these permits. It would certainly be a bad state of affairs if, he having decided not to issue these permits, I should be attempting to instruct the same police force to disregard his viewpoint and to carry into effect our policy in respect of a matter which comes under his jurisdiction.
I was asked questions when I was last in Vancouver, about certain reports being made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at the request of the provincial government that I should make them public, since I had access to their confidence. I have no access at all to them in relation to the matters that come under the provincial authority. The only way in which we can have this worked satisfactorily-indeed, the only way in which we could administer criminal justice generally -is by the two levels of government respecting the respective authority of each.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is responsible for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This letter was written to the superintendent in Victoria over two months ago. All he had to do was pick up the telephone and phone the provincial attorney general to find out whether it was British Columbia government policy that these men should not be issued revolvers. All the Minister of Justice had to do on July 16, when I asked him that question, was to have the R.C.M.P. checked in Victoria to find out what the situation was. He cannot get up here today and say that a mounted policeman in British Columbia is one kind of mounted policeman and a mounted policeman in Ottawa is another kind. It is all the one force.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I never said that.


Howard Charles Green: I have the floor.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am rising on a point of privilege. My hon. friend is attributing to me a statement that I did not make, that I said "A mounted policeman in British Columbia is one kind of mounted policeman, and a mounted policeman in Ottawa is another kind of mounted policeman." I never made any such statement at all, and I am sure that my hon. friend will agree that I did not.

Supply-Justice
What I said was that where there is a police agreement, as there is in the case of British Columbia between the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada, under which we agree in consideration of the payment of a large sum of money every year to make available the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force to the provincial attorney general to the end that he may be thereby assisted to carry out his responsibilities that police force when it is acting in that regard is acting under his control and not under mine. It would be a fine state of affairs if, in derogation of this agreement, I were instructing the mounted police to pay no attention to the attorney general of the province in the face of the fact that one of the terms of the agreement is that it shall carry out his wishes in the enforcement of justice in that province.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is responsible for the efficiency of the mounted police force. It seems to me to be extreme inefficiency for them if they did not take this question up with the attorney general at once, as soon as the complaint was received from British Columbia.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Howard Charles Green: Just a minute. I am making these remarks.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: How does my hon. friend know that the police officer in question did not phone the attorney general and that he was not told by him that he did not want to have a permit issued?


Howard Charles Green: If that was the case, we should be told so here in the house. That is what I want to know. I want to find out who is responsible for this ridiculous situation. If the mounted police know that the provincial attorney general is responsible, let us be told that here. Then we can go after the provincial attorney general. But the mounted police officer, when he replied to the letter of the British Columbia and Yukon chamber of mines, did not say he was writing to the provincial attorney general. He said he was writing to Ottawa. I would say it is the business of the mounted police, if they are directed efficiently, to clear this thing up with the attorney general and with the justice department. There is no justification for their doing nothing about it.
There is something to be said for the minister's argument that he does not want to interfere with the provincial attorney general.

But why did not the mounted police go ahead and investigate this thing and find out who was responsible for this change of policy? Do the mounted police today know who is responsible? Did that order go out from Ottawa or did it go out from the attorney general in Victoria? The mounted police must know that, and we should be told. All I am trying to do is to get to the bottom of the situation and to find out who made this fool change in policy.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is the point.


Ralph Byron Horner: Mr. Chairman-


Howard Charles Green: Wait a minute. I am getting an answer.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, the officer in British Columbia to whom my hon. friend from Vancouver-Quadra has referred has not written to me as to what he should do in the matter. In any case in which the matter concerning which he was writing had to do with the question of the policy to be followed by the attorney general of the province, our reply to him would be that this was a matter of provincial policy in respect of which he should take the direction of the attorney general of the province. That is the only possible attitude that we could take. Suppose that, for example, in the province of Ontario where there is no police contract we did not follow the practice that we do follow, of only issuing these permits with respect to interprovincial matters and express officers and so on who are travelling across several provinces, and suppose that in spite of the fact that the attorney general of Ontario did not issue any permits, we started issuing a great many of them from Ottawa in derogation of his policy. Is that the way in which to promote good relations between the two levels of government? I do not think so, and I am sure my hon. friend does not think so either.


Howard Charles Green: Did the minister say that Mr. Bordeleau did not write in to headquarters at Ottawa?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. I am saying that he did not write to me.


Howard Charles Green: In his reply to the British Columbia and Yukon chamber of mines he said that he was writing to headquarters for instructions. I also point out that in that letter Superintendent Bordeleau said that there was required an amendment to the Criminal Code, that nobody had any power to issue these permits, presumably the commissioner or the mounted police or the attorney general, according to his letter.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: All I can suggest is this, Mr. Chairman. The commissioner does not know, nor do I, whether or not this gentleman wrote

in. We can check on the matter and find out, and we certainly shall do so. But I can assure my hon. friend that if he did write in, in a matter having to do with provincial government policy, he would certainly be told, pursuant to the contract, that he should follow the direction of the provincial attorney general. For the life of me, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see why we should spend such a long time in this house debating this question when the whole thing could be settled in five minutes by getting on the long distance telephone, getting in contact with the attorney general of British Columbia and asking him point-blank what his policy is in this regard.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister this question? Will he phone the attorney general of British Columbia at noon today and find out just what the policy is? That will settle the whole thing. Will the commissioner-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am only suggesting that my hon. friend might have done this two or three months ago and thus have saved himself a good deal of trouble.


Howard Charles Green: It is not my responsibility to do that. It is your responsibility. Will the mounted police commissioner find out at noon just what correspondence he has had on this question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Surely.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps at 2.30 we can get some further information.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Ralph Byron Horner: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief. They have to do in general with the R.C.M.P.
The historic significance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is well known to Canadians. No police force is held in greater esteem nor regarded with greater pride or deeper satisfaction by the people it serves. It is indeed one of the finest police forces in the world. No other police force is so closely identified with the pioneering origins and progress of a country as is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It has preserved the many fine traditions of its origins and it has succeeded in attracting and maintaining a high degree of respect as an honest, efficient and dedicated group of Canadian men who serve their country, silently and often at great personal sacrifice, with dedication and a spirit of service not often seen in any field of endeavour.
Indeed, the force was originally intended to become another mounted regiment. The name was to have been "North West Mounted Rifles". Legend has it that, when Sir John
Supply-Justice
A. Macdonald realized that such a name might arouse distrust among our American neighbours of 1880, he took pen in hand and struck out the word "Rifles" and, in its stead wrote "Police". The force was not to number more than 300 men, all mounted and efficiently equipped, with, in Sir John's own words, "as little gold lace and fuss and feathers as possible". Ordinary constables were to get $1 per day, subconstables 75 cents.
In the famous westward march of 1874, Lt. Col. George A. French, the then commissioner, and his men performed a singular feat of human courage. They marched 781 miles from Red River and, except during the first 18 miles, did not see a human habitation beyond a few isolated Indian wigwams.
Inextricably interwoven with the history of the prairies and the growth of Canada, the force has made an outstanding contribution to peace and order and respect for law in Canada. Our Canadian heritage would indeed be the poorer had Canada not had a police force which fitted so well and so colourfully into the hard early and formative years of our country.
It has been my privilege to have served in the force. One other member of our party has also seen service in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Any member or ex-member of the force is always quick to recognize and to acknowledge the tremendous influence which tradition and the maintenance of high ideals of service have in all aspects of life and service in the force.
The present commissioner is to be congratulated on his forward-looking achievements since becoming commissioner of the force. Throughout the years, however, some unpleasant aspects of the military life of 1880 have been held over and have become not only .cumbersome but detrimental to the recruiting of well-suited men and the keeping of these men in the service. If I were to put my finger on the most glaring example of how one holdover from the days of the great ride west prejudicially affects the force, I would have to deal with the anti-marriage regulations now in effect in the force. I am quick to agree that in 1880 the duties of the force were such as to require free wheeling and fast moving men, without kith or kin to consider. Isolation was often the keynote of service, and long, dangerous, lonely patrols were the essence of the work involved. These conditions, except in northern service, have long since vanished and our concept of freedom today does not tolerate any interference in the rights of men engaged in police work in regard to marriage.

Supply-Justice
Early in 1956 I read the following headlines in the newspapers: "Six R.C.M.P. Constables Fired for Marrying". The article goes on to show how the six couples had been secretly married for about a year. At social functions, the wives pretended to be girl friends. This was not a so-called "secret marriage ring" the article said. The members of the force had acted individually, but all had been married for some time. Why should they not be married, Mr. Chairman? May I point out the very detrimental aspects of this unnecessary, morally injurious and prejudicial regulation, for which there is no reason today.
Consider how this regulation limits the age of the recruit. It now requires, in most cases, five years' service and other qualifications before permission to marry may be granted. The ideal member is likely to be the young man who has completed his education and has had some experience in one or more fields of endeavour. By this time, the young man is in his early twenties and is looking for an opportunity to settle down, found a home and raise a family. I maintain this man is more often than not prevented and discouraged from joining the force merely because he cannot do so if he is married, and cannot get married for five years if he does. Often it is the bright young accountant or young lawyer, about age 28, who wants to make police work his life's endeavour. The F.B.I. in the United States has long limited recruiting almost exclusively to men of these professions. Here again he is prevented from joining because he is married or discouraged from joining because he has to postpone marriage for at least five years, which would make him 33 and that is too long to wait. Thus the R.C.M.P., by this morally wrong regulation, is depriving itself of the services of men most likely to be most suited and qualified. The force, by this unnecessary rule, limits recruits to very young men who, after joining, often soon find the occasion to get married.
Let me say this, Mr. Chairman. Under such influences as are found in life in the force, no such morally wrong anti-marriage regulations will stand for long in the way of love. Thus some members, like the six constables mentioned in the news item, live secretly wedded lives and must continue to do so if they wish to keep their jobs. I commend those men who would rather break a stupid anti-marriage rule in the force than live in the risk of breaking the laws of God in respect to morality in sex and marriage.
Will the Minister of Justice, who sits there with his glum expression, tell me what he has against marriage by members of the

force? Does he not agree and recognize that the family units are the very basis of our society? Does he not agree that no reason whatever exists to punish our men in the force by denying them the natural right to found a family and live a peaceful married life? Is there a member of this house who disagrees with me when I say that the Canadian people do not want this situation to exist? The Canadian people want the members of the force paid increased wages to permit them to lead comfortable married lives and be permitted to marry as and when they please, with aid and encouragement from the force itself. I appeal to your sense of the value of morals to appreciate how this senseless regulation is inclined to affect sex morality in the force. This government is morally responsible for placing these young men in the force in a position where they cannot, without living secretly wedded lives, exercise fundamental, inherent basic rights of the human race.
One of the detrimental results not always apparent by reason of this regulation, which in a police force is morally wrong, is the terrific turnover in the personnel of the force. Many well trained, experienced and valued men in the force, rather than live a secretly married life or wait for years on end to get married, leave the force. This often occurs at a time when their services in the force have become most valued and needed. This regulation defeats and discourages recruiting of men and the retention of their services in the mounted police. Remember this: a distinction is necessary, because I refer not to the voluntary vows of celibacy for life in various religious institutions, and which we all recognize to be a way of life voluntarily accepted in the vocation of religious life. I say this because I know some Liberal members will try to twist and turn the meaning of remarks. Let us remove the barnacles from the force. I request, on behalf of the people of Canada, that the members of the force be paid higher wages and be permitted to marry as and when they choose. Let this government place the force in a position to hire and keep policemen. I realize that in some cases involving police work in small towns a member of the force may be permitted, under certain circumstances, to marry after three years. However, be it three years or five or seven years, as it was formerly, it is the concept of this curtailment of liberty which is wrong and which should be righted in the light of morality and the betterment of the force.
Another holdover from the regimental status of the force in the 1880's is the system of promotion. Now, the army system of promotion in Canada is good, although there is

room for much improvement. However, it is not the same system as existed in the 1880's. The old army system of promotion of 1880, presently practised by the force, does not meet the requirements of the force nor does it give sufficient recognition to the valour and efficiency of its members. It is, on the whole, entirely unsatisfactory. In the army today a private may become a corporal overnight. But in the R.C.M.P. it usually requires eight or more years' service. A corporal in the army today can become a sergeant in a matter of months, but in the R.C.M.P. it usually requires 15 or more years. Indeed, the majority of the members spend their entire careers in the force as third, second or first class constables and retire as constables. It will be readily seen that the present system of promotion does not provide sufficient recognition and acknowledgement for ability, efficiency, outstanding service or seniority of service.
Furthermore, in the public mind, the rank of corporal in the force is synonomous with the rank of corporal in the army. I have every respect for the army rank of corporal but we all know that, in the force, apart from the use of the same terms, the similarity ends. A corporal in the R.C.M.P. has already been a third class constable; a second class constable; a first class constable; and in some cases a sub-constable. He has also seen an average of 10 years of service; has become proficient in many branches of police work and has become an expert in some. His training has been extensive and his conduct and application to duty have been outstanding over a long period of time. Then, again, the corporal in the R.C.M.P. is normally in charge of policing an area, a district, county or town. He has usually several men under his command. He is like the chief of police in a given area. His work, his responsibilities, his influence place him in a position of honour and responsibility in the community. I suggest, therefore, that the term corporal be abolished and replaced by a term which more suitably designates and describes the duties involved and the meaning of the promotion, such as chief officer.
The same reasoning should be applied to all other terms used to designate rank and authority in police work below the rank of inspector. I do not intend this remark to apply to subinspectors, inspectors, superintendents, deputy commissioners, assistant commissioners or commissioners. You will note that in these commissioned officer ranks, appropriate names of rank for police work have been adopted, and wisely so. Why not recognize the same principle in regard to ranks below those of commissioned officer ranks? I maintain that a new importance
Supply-Justice
would be given police work and a new and better recognition would come to members of the force if these two aspects of life in the force were altered along the lines I suggest. Recruiting would be helped. Better men, more educated men, would be encouraged to join the force, and fewer good men now in the force would be inclined to leave. This government and the people of Canada simply do not know and do not appreciate the real sacrifices imposed upon the men in the force by reason of these and other stupid regulations which have no reason for existing in 1956. They are holdovers from the regimental unit which the force was in 1880. The army of today would look silly with some of the regulations of 1880. Why punish the men in the mounted police by retaining those holdovers of 1880? Now, lest some Liberal again twists my remarks, let me say that the desired changes can be brought about without in any way detracting from the fine traditions associated with the force.
The force is out of date and out of step. Let the government give our men in the force a decent break and a fair deal.
Let me say a word on pensions. While in Edmundston the other day I was talking to a man who retired from the force some 10 years ago with the rank of sergeant. He mentioned to me that today a sergeant retired with about three times what he was getting. Does the government not think that it would be only fair to reconsider the pension scheme that has been applied to the force over the years and do something toward bringing up to date today the pensions that were given say 10 or 15 years ago. The men who retired on pensions some years ago are now living in almost pitiable conditions. The same thing applies here as applied to the men of the Canadian National Railways who are expected to live on $25 a month.
I am sure there is not one man in this house who disagrees with me. If we all agree that this is right, then it is only because the government lacks the courage to do something about it. Why not recognize that a man who has spent his life in the force is almost just as intimately connected with the administration of justice as a judge, or a lawyer in the employ of the government, and his training and ability, although on a different plane, are most important. Whereas a judge interprets the law and imposes sentence, the policeman enforces it and prevents its breach. If there is one singular aspect in connection with the mounted police today it is in the efforts they are making to prevent crime. Why not adopt the attitude that the members of the force should be considered in the same light as

Supply-Justice
other law enforcement officers employed by the Department of Justice who do not happen to be members of the force?
Today, in police work, as in all fields of law, specialization is the key and the order of the day. Gone are most of the old duties of the force, the patrolling of boundaries, the quieting of unrest on the reserves, the long prairie patrols. Those were great days in the history of the force of jobs well done, often under adverse and dangerous conditions. Great traditions were then embedded and have stood the force in good stead ever since. But today new duties and new specialties are required.
The F.B.I. in the United States has come up with a more realistic answer to the problem inherent today in police work. Canada, although a much smaller country, should not tarry in adopting, to a greater degree, the more modern and efficient methods used by the F.B.I. and Scotland Yard. This can be done without detracting from the traditions of the force in any respect. Police work today must be based on specialization and a keener atmosphere of service, and more encouragement must be provided. In this, the force falls short of the mark and more corrective methods are needed.
Pensions in the force are inadequate and should be raised. They should be made uniform and simple. The mumbo-jumbo that now exists in pension regulations should be more uniform and the force retain its marks of greatness. No one even suggests that the uniforms be changed or that the horses be abolished, or that the training be abolished, but do not let these things become so nostalgic as to prevent the force from becoming the modern police force which Canada now needs.
I suppose the hon. member for Charlotte, that dim-witted saboteur of New Brunswick, will again get up-


Mr. Bennett:: He is not here; if he were, you would not say that.


Ralph Byron Horner: Don't tell me he is not here. He just lies around the house between pay days-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


Walter Edward Harris: I hope the hon. member will withdraw at once his remarks about the hon. member for Charlotte.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw the word "saboteur".


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The personal
remarks directed to the absent member for Charlotte by the hon. member for Resti-gouche-Madawaska should be withdrawn.


Ralph Byron Horner: I did not realize he was not here; I thought maybe he was around.


James Sinclair: You would not have said it if he were here today.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member will withdraw his last remarks.


Ralph Byron Horner: I withdraw them on the condition that I would not have withdrawn had he been here.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Has the hon. member completed his remarks?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It is almost one o'clock. I have just one brief question. In view of the fact that the R.C.M.P. has the responsibility of enforcing the regulations of the Canada Shipping Act, and since apparently a great many new regulations are contemplated, particularly with respect to regulating small boats and craft on the great lakes, minor waters and other waters of Canada, has the minister contemplated making any additions to the force effectively to enforce the new regulations which are contemplated, particularly since we understand from the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport that these regulations will be coming into force sometime this fall. I might say that we are very happy that this year the R.C.M.P. has made a special effort to enforce the existing regulations under the Canada Shipping Act. Those of us who come from the great lakes area of southern Ontario greatly appreciate the fact that they are enforcing the fire and life-saving regulations. Does the minister contemplate making any additions to the force in view of the great number of regulations that will be coming into effect?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We have this matter under consideration. There have been some additions to the force since we have taken on this new responsibility. I would not suggest that they are directly attributable to that. It may be that we shall have to add others. At the present time we have under consideration just what will be involved in the complete administration of those regulations, and we shall be governed by the conclusions that we reach on the basis of the attention we give to these matters.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Hodgson:: Mr. Chairman, I have been doing a little thinking and a little figuring concerning the Royal Canadian Mounted

Police force and I have come to the conclusion that they are the finest group of men that could be gathered together in one association. Many years ago they established a splendid tradition and this has been lived up to over the years.
Sometimes I think certain things could be done for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force that would not only benefit the force but would encourage the individuals who comprise it. For instance the qualifications for enlistment in the R.C.M.P. are both rigid and strict and they are certainly enforced to the letter. When a young man wishes to join the force he must be possessed of a high I.Q.; in other words, he must not only be an intelligent fellow but he must be physically fit. I believe the standards for enrolment in the R.C.M.P. are higher than those which apply to any other police force in the commonwealth of nations.
I do not believe the force is presently being overrun with volunteers nor is it swamped with applicants, because from time to time advertisements such as the one I hold in my hand appear in the newspapers and these are designed to encourage volunteers. This advertisement reads in part:
The prime requisites of a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are intelligence, loyaity, integrity and courage. Service requirements frequently entail long hours, inconvenience and personal danger. Service benefits and advantages include a certain prestige, good comradeship, a measure of adventure and satisfaction through service to Canada.
There is no doubt that this force renders a great service to Canada and perhaps the service it renders is greater than that rendered by any other organization within the boundaries of our country. There is also no doubt that these men create, promote and maintain a feeling of mutual understanding and good will between the people of various races and religions who live in this country. They do a great deal more than just policing in the areas where they are stationed.
I am happy to say that the R.C.M.P. is the only branch of government service where the patronage system has not crept in and possibly this has been prevented because of the efforts of the top officials in the force.
The young men who join the R.C.M.P. are about the poorest paid civil servants, if you want to call them that, in any department of government. Their salaries start at $2,500 a year and I believe $50 a month is taken off for board, clothes and other things. These men do not put in an 8-hour day and a 5-day week, I might point out, and I know this of my own knowledge.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would my hon. friend permit me to interrupt just for a moment before
Supply-Justice
he commits himself as to any statement concerning what these men are paid? I suggest that the hon. member abstain from doing so because on page 3596 of Hansard for May 4, 1956 he will find that I recorded the whole pay list of the entire force and it is considerably better than the amount he suggested.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I realize that, but you did not take into account the $50 a month I referred to in the list you put in Hansard on May 4; you did not say anything about that. I am referring to take-home pay. Every labourer and employee is more concerned with take home pay than gross pay. You may give a man $5,000 a year but if you take off $2,000 the net remains $3,000. I believe the R.C.M.P. are underpaid from start to finish in every wage classification.
It is perhaps all right to underpay these men for the first two years during which they are in training because the course they undergo for the first two years is equivalent to the same number of years of university training. It certainly goes a long way toward making them better citizens and more capable policemen. These men did receive a slight raise at the time the rest of the civil service got a raise and I am not complaining about the salary they receive during the first two years of training, but after that period of time they should receive $4,000.
Because these men are of such a high calibre and because they are intelligent, capable, wholesome men they could command a salary of at least $4,000 in industry or elsewhere, and when one considers the long hours they put in and the dangers and hazards which accompany their position they should receive at least $4,000 a year the third year they are in the force.
As the hon. member for Restigouche-Mada-waska said, promotions in the force are very slow in coming. This is quite true and it has to be that way because there are only a certain number of officers in the force. I suggest the pay for these men should increase not only year by year, as it presently does, but that during the third year they are in the force their salary should jump to at least $4,000.
I can understand why young men join the force; they see the red serge and the colourful uniforms and they have read about the tradition and heroism of the force; but after the third or fourth year of service the glamour begins to fade unless there is a little increase in pay.
Perhaps the top officials in the force, whoever they are, may be receiving enough money but the young men who after two years of

Supply-Justice
training must work tor $2,600, $2,700 or $3,000 a year are not going to be content to stay in the force on the basis of the glamour and glory of serving with it.
I think the minister will agree that a number of young men are leaving the force. The minister is shaking his head but I can tell him that I know some who have left and I believe more will be leaving unless some improvement is made in the salary for service after two or three years. I think the government should take this into consideration and pay these men according to their worth and capacity.
These men do not put in an 8-hour day or a 5-day week. I know policemen who serve anywhere from 15 to 20 hours a day, day in and day out, for long periods at a time. People in the armed services are required to put in only a 5-day week and I see them hitchhiking home on Friday nights. Policemen seldom have a Sunday off and they never go to bed at night without hanging their uniforms on a chair within reach in order that they can jump into them quickly. These men are on call 24 hours a day 365 days a year except for a brief holiday period and it must be remembered that they have no say as to when they wish to take their holidays. Many of them probably have to take their holidays in the fall or winter. If the government intends to pay these men what they are worth in the third year of their service they should receive not less than $4,000 a year. I urge the government to take this matter into consideration immediately.


Mr. Simmons:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief. I heartily support the remarks made by the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra and the hon. member for Kootenay West with regard to the issuance of revolver permits to prospectors. These hardy, courageous pioneers of Canada should not be denied personal protection on their hazardous journeys through the wilderness in the northern reaches of this country. I know that the prospectors of the Yukon have encountered the same difficulties in obtaining permits as those related by the hon. member to whom I have just referred as well as those who serve the British Columbia and Yukon chamber of mines. The prospectors are the backbone of our northern areas and should be assisted to the fullest extent possible.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, at this point I think perhaps I might very briefly tell the house the result of my telephone call to Mr. Bonner, the attorney general of British Columbia, at the noon hour which was suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. I was not able to get Mr. Bonner because he is out of town, but I did get his

deputy and he confirms the fact that there is no doubt at all that this is a matter of provincial government policy. I have here a circular which we sent out to our own people which reads:
Whether or not permits should be granted to prospectors and geologists as suggested in the communication forwarded by the chamber of mines for British Columbia and the Yukon, is a matter which we feel should be decided by the issuing officer, bearing in mind the policy which the attorney general wishes followed.
That is the attorney general of the province. Then I may say that from time to time, as I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra who is a lawyer is aware, the commissioners on uniformity of criminal law administration meet and if there is any embarrassment in the present law in relation to the policy followed in British Columbia I have told the British Columbia authorities that we would be most happy to co-operate in any amendment that the uniformity commissioners might agree upon.
While I am on my feet I should like to clear up one or two points. I am sure the hon. member for Bestigouche-Madawaska will not think it an intentional discourtesy if I do not deal with his remarks upon the subject of marriage by members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The fact of the matter is that I dealt with this at length during the debate on my estimates on May 4 and there is no purpose in my going over the same ground today.
I should also like to point out that I must take strong issue with some of his other remarks. It is not true that there is a large turnover in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That statement which he made is quite spectacular but it is not correct. The fact of the matter is, and this should be borne in mind by those members who sometimes throw out the suggestion that there is a large turnover in the force, that while the figure of wastage varies over the past five years it has fluctuated between 5J per cent per annum and 8 per cent per annum. That is one of the lowest wastage rates, if not the lowest, in the entire civil service.
Another thing which should be said, although I am sure it is not necessary in this chamber, is that the information prompted by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska that the traditions which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have retained, I think with the approval of all of us, in relation to their musical ride, their uniform, their conduct, their smartness and the like, should not apply also to old-fashioned methods of crime detection. His statement to this effect is completely without foundation. I have been through the crime

detection laboratory of the mounted police and I cannot imagine anything that would be a greater discouragement to an intending criminal than to see from it what small chance he has of escaping detection. The methods used there are as up to date as those used by any police force in the world. I think it is rather regrettable that the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska should suggest otherwise.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not indicate what report he had from Superintendent Bordeleau in Victoria. Also, what about the Yukon? The hon. member for the Yukon has said that this same policy is being followed by the mounted police in the Yukon and certainly the attorney general of British Columbia cannot be blamed for that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is quite true. As far as the Yukon is concerned, the point made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is quite correct. I am the responsible minister there. I have not had any cases such as those raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, any specific concrete cases, but if there are any I would be glad to examine them when they are brought to my attention.
I should like to quote from a letter from J. R. W. Bordeleau, superintendent, officer in charge, Victoria, dated June 7, 1956, addressed to the commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Ottawa. It reads:
Consequently, at the beginning of this year the policy formulated here, which was received with agreement by the deputy attorney general, was to the effect that an effort should be made towards limiting these permits to those cases which fell strictly within the exemptions provided by statute and as a consequence the recipients were greatly reduced in numbers.
There is no question as to what the policy is.


Howard Charles Green: Who was present at the formulation of this policy? The letter refers to a meeting at which the policy was formulated and I should like to know who was present. It says that the deputy attorney general approved the policy, but who actually formulated it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid I could not tell my hon. friend. He is a resident of British Columbia and perhaps he can say with greater certainty as to how the British Columbia government formulates its policy. I presume it might be the cabinet on the recommendation of the attorney general, or it might have been a purely intra-departmental policy, that is formulated within the department of the attorney general and not necessarily commanding the attention of other members of the government.
Supply-Justice


Howard Charles Green: That letter reads as though some police officers, which of course would be mounted police officers, formulated this policy and then the deputy attorney general approved of it. If that is the case and if the minister thinks that this policy is wrong in so far as the Yukon is concerned, then I suggest that he see that a change is made in respect to the Yukon. I am sure there would not be the slightest doubt that the British Columbia government would be glad to follow suit because this letter admits that there has been a definite change in policy this year and that there has been a limitation in the issuance of these permits to carry revolvers. I do not think it can be argued that that policy is not unfair to prospectors, engineers and geologists. In fact, the minister has admitted that in so far as the Yukon is concerned. I would hope that he will do whatever he can to see that this whole situation is remedied quickly and at least throw his weight behind a movement to restore the issuing of permits to the position in which it has been for the last 25 years. How does the minister interpret these provisions:
A permit in form 42 shall be issued only where the person who issues is satisfied that the applicant for the permit requires the firearm to which It relates
(a)	to protect his life or property,
(b)	for use in connection with his profession or occupation.
What is the minister's opinion with regard to the right of a prospector or engineer or geologist to get a permit under that section?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think I could reproduce language that would be more clear than the wording of that statute which my hon. friend has just read as an abstract proposition for general application; but the problem arises when an application comes in from Mr. John Jones, who is a prospector in British Columbia or the Yukon. He says he wants a revolver permit. The facts are examined and a decision reached as to whether he has brought himself within the meaning of this section. If he has he is granted a permit, if he has not he does not get it. I do not think I can add anything. I said a few moments ago in regard to the Yukon that if there are any cases there that are considered to be hardships I wish the hon. member would bring them to our attention. But so far as British Columbia is concerned, as I have said, and I am sure my hon. friend will agree, it has to be brought to the attention of the attorney general of British Columbia. I certainly would not undertake to interfere in any way with his administration of the law in that province. That is his responsibility and it is none of my business.

Supply-Justice


Howard Charles Green: There is no use following the matter further, but I do hope that the minister will let it be known that in his opinion these men should be able to get these permits to carry revolvers.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I think the discussion that has taken place on the subject of the issuance of permits to prospectors has revealed that there is a good deal of misunderstanding on the question of where the responsibility lies in those provinces where there is a contract with the provincial government for the R.C.M.P. to carry on the police work. In view of this apparent misunderstanding, could the minister outline briefly what areas of police activity fall within the responsibility of the attorney general of the province and what areas remain under federal jurisdiction in a situation such as in British Columbia where there is contract with respect to the services of the R.C.M.P.?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Does my hon. friend mean in general or in relation to this particular matter?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Not necessarily in relation to this particular matter. There must be some general areas under the agreements where the responsibility is in federal hands.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are a federal force. Their responsibilities are to administer those statutes which are peculiarly federal in character such as the narcotics act, the Customs Act, antismuggling activities, the Excise Act and the other federal taxation statutes. As I indicated this morning, so far as the general body of the criminal law is concerned, while its enactment is within the jurisdiction of this parliament, its enforcement comes entirely under the heading of the administration of justice and enforcement of the law which are exclusively the responsibility of the provincial government. In those provinces such as Ontario and Quebec where they have provincial forces of their own you will find that it is that provincial force that enforces the general body of the criminal law, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police deal only with customs irregularities, antinarcotic work and things of that sort.
We have entered into an arrangement for reasons of economy in eight of the provinces of Canada under which the enforcement of the law, the administration of justice, all the police work necessary in those two connections, are handed over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under a police agreement. In consideration of the federal government thus making the services of the R.C.M.P. available for provincial administration of the law these provinces pay us

each year a large sum of money. In that way we have just one police force that serves all of the provincial purposes and the federal purposes in that one province at a great saving to the taxpayer.
But in order to have that work properly and effectively done it is of the utmost importance that we in the Department of Justice should not take advantage of the fact that our police force is working under the direction of the provincial attorney general to interfere in any way with the direction which he has over them which is analogous to that which he would have over his own police force if it were still in existence. He should have the same control over the mounted police in respect of all his sphere of responsibility as he would have if British Columbia still had a provincial police force.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am interested in having this point cleared up because I should like to have a clear understanding with regard to certain incidents that have occurred in the province of British Columbia. Stories have appeared in the British Columbia press to the effect that the attorney general of that province has had Inspector Butler, I believe, of the criminal investigation branch carrying out certain investigations into the activities of a former minister of the British Columbia government. Is that something that the attorney general of British Columbia could properly assign such an inspector to do?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Under the police agreement the attorney general of British Columbia can properly direct any member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to do anything that he could direct the analogous provincial officer to do if British Columbia had its own force. I do not know enough about the particular case to which my hon. friend is referring to say whether it falls into that category. But I would assume that it did. Otherwise the police officer would not take on the task. In general, my hon. friend can clear up any doubt he has in his mind if he will put himself in the position of the provincial attorney general. If he were the attorney general, would he under such a contract continue under the responsibility to the people of that province to see that the law was properly enforced unless he had the same kind of control over the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under the police agreement that he would have had if he had continued with a provincial police force?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I can understand the minister's point in that connection quite readily. I simply wanted to be clear about the matter. From what the minister has said I understand that if an inspector of the R.C.M.P.

were to be requested to do something by the attorney general of a province which was not covered by the terms of the agreement the inspector would be in a situation where he could refer the matter to R.C.M.P. headquarters to determine whether or not it was a proper assignment. Is my inference in that connection correct?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would prefer to have my own language be considered in this connection. I am not suggesting that what my hon. friend says is incorrect. Even though there may be the odd occasion when it is embarrassing, I prefer to stand by my own language.


Mr. Argue:: It is a delicate situation.


Harold Edward Winch: Let us bring the issue right out in the open. Who is paying the expenses of the inspector who has travelled to the United States on a number of occasions on a most expensive investigation into the activities of the former minister of lands and forests of British Columbia? Are they being paid by the British Columbia government or are they being charged to the R.C.M.P. here on the federal level?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Under the terms of the police agreement, in consideration of the annual payment which we receive we undertake to defray all of the expenses that the police incur in connection with the legitimate work which they do under the terms of the agreement for the provincial government, and in that event we would pay that cost.


Harold Edward Winch: If you have to pay that cost, then may we ask for the filing in this house of the report on that investigation, or does it still remain the secret of the attorney general of British Columbia?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, Mr. Chairman, we cannot. If my hon. friend will reflect upon it very briefly I am sure he will see at once that we could not expect a responsible government to enter into an agreement under which their legitimate activities were going to be the subject of scrutiny by a legislature to which they were not answerable.


Harold Edward Winch: In other words, the attorney general of British Columbia can bury a report for which your department has to pay.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, that would be so. As a matter of fact, when I was in Vancouver last the newspaper reporters came to me and wanted me to tell them whether, as Attorney General of Canada, I would use my office in that connection for the purpose of getting hold of this report and making it public.
67509-476J
Supply-Justice
I said that under no circumstances would we ever consider such a move, that the whole system of having the policing work done by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the province would break down completely if the provincial administration could not have a position which would be the same in relation to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as that which would obtain between them and their own provincial police force.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think the minister should give consideration perhaps to revising that agreement when it comes up again for negotiation. I am quite sure that it was never the intention of the Attorney General of Canada to enter into an agreement whereby a province or a provincial government could use the R.C.M.P. for purposes other than the normal police purposes of a province. Without commenting on this particular case, of which I know nothing, may I say that I think it is fairly obvious, from what has been suggested, that it would be possible- whether it has been done here no one knows or at least I do not know-for the attorney general or a minister of the crown in the provincial administration to use the R.C.M.P., shall we say, for political purposes or to conduct investigations of various kinds which certainly the people of Canada as a whole should not be called upon to pay for. If the agreement has been drawn in such general terms that the Attorney General of Canada feels that he is obliged to comply with the agreement and to say this falls within the framework of it,-and on that matter I am not passing any judgment whatsoever at the moment-I say that the agreement should be carefully considered by the officers of the department so that such a situation could not arise again. I am quite sure that the people of Nova Scotia, of Ontario or of any other province in Canada are not the least bit concerned about the political activities of a certain cabinet minister in British Columbia. Obviously they would prefer that the R.C.M.P. were not making any such investigation. In any event, they do not want to pay the costs of that investigation.


Mr. Lennard:: Mr. Chairman, it is quite apparent that the duties of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are numerous and varied. I feel that in some cases they must be a great embarrassment to that great force. I have in mind a job they do for the customs and excise branch. This particular instance which I will quote is not an isolated one. These sales take place continually. I mean that they go on one year after another. Whenever they have stuff to sell, it is sold in every part of

Supply-Justice
Canada. This particular case was a sale by tender. The notice reads as follows:

Customs and Excise



SALE BY TENDER

[Stage Direction]
Tenders addressed to the Officer Commanding will be received at his office at 3 Sullivan Street. Toronto, Ontario, until Saturday, the 30th day of June, 1956, at noon (E.D.S.T.) for the following forfeited goods, viz.: one earthenware crock of five (5) gallon capacity.
This article may be inspected at the R.C.M. Police detachment, 939 Main Street E„ Hamilton, Ontario.
Tenders must be forwarded by registered mail, in an envelope, addressed as follows:
The Officer Commanding,
R.C.M. Police, Postal Station "A",
Toronto, Ontario.
Tender Division File N55T93/49.
Tenders must be submitted in sealed envelope marked "Tender".
Terms: 10 per cent deposit in cash, money order or certified cheque with tender.
The highest or any tender not necessarily accepted.
And so on.
In this particular case, the article went to the successful tenderer who submitted a tender iri the amount of 50 cents and submitted a five-cent money order as the 10 per cent deposit. That crock was delivered by a member of the R.C.M.P.
George Clyde Nowlan: Was it empty or full?


Frank Exton Lennard: The balance of 45 cents
was collected. In connection with the posting of these notices of sale by tender, I might say that the posting was done by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer. He drove to these different towns including the Hamilton post office; postal station D, Hamilton; and post offices in Brantford, Dundas and Burlington. That would take at least half a day. That performance, coupled with the other red tape in connection with this 50-cen't sale, is just plain ridiculous. I would not object to this procedure if it were in connection with articles of some considerable value. However, I think a line should be drawn some place. It is ridiculous to put the police to all that trouble and the country to all that expense to sell a thing for 50 cents.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In fairness to the police, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just briefly that the way in which to achieve the reform which my hon. friend has in' mind is to amend the law. You cannot have the police force breaking the law,-


Frank Exton Lennard: I understand that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -no matter how wise it
may seem for them to break it and how ridiculous it may seem for them to obey it.


Frank Exton Lennard: Then are you considering
changing the law?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I shall be glad to take the
matter up with the Minister of National Revenue.


Mr. Zapliiny:: To come back to the question of these contracts with the federal department and the province for police work, I should like to ask a question of the minister. The type of investigation that was referred to in British Columbia, which was of course very unusual and very expensive, perhaps is beyond some of the things that have happened in the province of Manitoba such as travelling three or four hundred miles to deliver a summons for a highway traffic violation. But the question I want to ask is this. How do we stand financially in relation to these eight provinces? Are we in a deficit position or are we in a credit position? That is to say, the province pays the federal government so much a year by contract for the use of the R.C.M.P. The federal department is obliged to pay the expenses and salaries of the R.C.M.P. Perhaps the minister could place on record a statement showing where we stand with regard to these eight provinces. Have we paid out more money than we have received or have we received more money than we have paid out, say, within the last fiscal year?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder whether my hon.
friend from Dauphin understands-and if he does not, it is my fault for not having explained it previously-the nature of the police contract. In essence, it is this. Let us take as an example the province of Manitoba with which he is familiar. You start out with two police forces in that province, namely the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the provincial police force. They say, "What is the sense of having two police forces here? Can we not enter into an agreement which would be economical for both of us and just have the one?" So in the case of Manitoba the provincial police force was disbanded and Manitoba entered into a contract for the services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. After that contract is entered into we have paid to us by Manitoba roughly 40 per cent of our entire costs. We have to increase our staff to some extent in order to take care of both these tasks, although not to the extent that one might think because in many places the one force can do the job just as well as two forces could do it, without any increase in staff at all.
My hon. friend asked about debit and credit. The fact of the matter is that both governments are saving money, the province by paying a smaller amount of money to us

than they would have to pay in order to maintain its own police force and we, by virtue of the fact that we get this substantial subsidy from the province in order to continue maintaining a police force that we would have to maintain in any event.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: As 1 understand it, there is no cost accounting kept to find out whether this arrangement is actually costing the federal government any money or not. It is simply assumed that about 40 per cent of the work will be done for the purposes of the provincial government and in that way you charge approximately 40 per cent of the costs to the province. Is that the arrangement? There is no cost accounting kept as to what it actually costs the federal department to administer the provincial law.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think we have a record of the money that we have spent or, if we do not have it, we can secure it by taking it off the books if we set some clerks to work to the end of finding out, for example, police costs in the province of Manitoba over a period of a year. But there is no cost accounting set up with a view to debiting one concern or the other. The whole theory is that if you have two forces, and if you abolish one and have the remaining force do the work of two, it is a very good arrangement for a province to pay 40 per cent and it is a very good arrangement for us to get 40 per cent and to carry on in the way we had been doing previously.


George Clyde Nowlan: Are there any municipalities within a province which are using the R.C.M.P. for their own municipal police force?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, throughout Canada there are 120 municipalities where the same type of arrangement is entered into between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the municipalities.


George Clyde Nowlan: I understand that by virtue of the agreement between the province and the federal government, the province in turn can make arrangements with the municipality-or is it done directly?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, it is done directly. It is a tripartite agreement which the province has to sign. But actually the negotiations take place directly with the municipality, although in principle we do not deal except through the province, whose officials also have to sign the agreement.


George Clyde Nowlan: I was not at all sure, but I knew there were cases like that. Frankly I am not too happy myself at the use of the R.C.M.P. to do police work on the municipal level because I think it may possibly involve
Supply-Justice
them-I know it has-in situations where, to say the least, public comment is not what we would like to have in view of the record of this force in the past.


Mr. Montgomery:: I thought I knew and understood about these agreements, but as a result of this discussion I am not so sure. Even though the minister's department makes agreements with the provinces whereby they get so much money for policing that province, does the department not retain control over the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in certain matters for which you do not have to go to the attorneys-general of the provinces to get permission to investigate?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The answer is yes. I am afraid I was lacking in lucidity if I have left any other impression by my previous remarks. We continue, as we have always done, to have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police discharge all those federal police functions, customs, and excise and the like. But since the agreements have been entered into we try to do this with the one force, to have the federal functions discharged as well as the provincial functions, and in the latter respect, the police are under the direction of the provincial attorney general.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: This morning I was asking the minister a few questions about taking on more men to enforce the new regulations that would be coming into force under the Canada Shipping Act. There are one or two further questions I should like to ask. When regulations are enforced by the R.C.M.P. under a federal statute such as the Canada Shipping Act who instructs the R.C.M.P. what procedure to go through when they are carrying out an investigation? Do they investigate in any manner they think best or would the Department of Transport instruct the police as to the type of investigation the department wanted them to undertake? Would the Department of Transport give the R.C.M.P. any guidance as to the type of investigation the department desired them to undertake?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The investigating techniques are the responsibility of the police, and policy is the responsibility of tranport.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: During the committee proceedings under the bill, we heard recently that there is one section of the Canada Shipping Act that requires a certain type of investigation to be done in connection with fire fighting and life saving equipment. I am not referring to pleasure boats but to fishing vessels and that type of boat. We also learned that the R.C.M.P. undertakes that inspection service. We found out, too,

Supply-Justice
in the committee that this was done on a spot check basis from time to time and there were no records kept of the vessels checked, although the Department of Transport had a record of the number of spot checks that were made. One vessel might go for 30 or 40 years without ever being checked, while another vessel might be checked every year. I should like to pass this on to the minister and the R.C.M.P. for their consideration.
When spot checks are made in connection with life saving or fire fighting equipment, I would suggest that a record be kept of the vessels so checked in order to avoid checking the same vessels year after year while other ship owners might be keeping deliberately out of reach because they did not have good equipment. This would apply also to pleasure craft that will be brought under the new regulations.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to briefly support the remarks made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings with respect to the R.C.M.P. in municipalities. I have spoken to many people and they do not think much of it, particularly in the smaller municipalities. I do not think it is to the advantage of the force to have R.C.M.P. constables tramping around a small town trying shop doors and chasing boys for stealing apples. I think that particular type of police work should be carried out by municipal police officials. I would not like to see the practice encouraged in the smaller towns and municipalities.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
167. Remission service, including $30,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by the treasury board, $186,585.
Harold Edward Winch: I am not going to hold the house up at all. I just want to say that in the course of being a member I have, upon occasion, had to take up matters of penitentiary policy and tickets of leave. I want to tell the minister, it would be the only fair thing to do, how much I appreciate the consideration that has been given to me by the remissions branch, and in particular the head of the remissions branch, in connection with many of these cases I have brought to his attention. As a result of my interest in the work I have felt, in the past, he has not had a sufficient staff to do the work as it should be done and as I think he, personally, would like to see it done. The remissions branch is responsible for the review of all cases of men and women in the jails and penitentiaries. In addition, as I pointed out this morning, I think there is an increase of $22,000 in this vote to cover increased personnel. If the minister is able to implement

the recommendations of the Fauteux report, the work of this remissions branch is going to become of major importance and one which I think will result eventually in the saving of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money.
I think that in the past the head of this department has not had sufficient staff and I do not think even with the increase of $22,000 he will have sufficient staff to carry out the work under the present policy. I sincerely hope, in view of what I hope are kind words for the consideration of the cases I have brought to his attention, some consideration will be given to that branch and more staff made available in order that the head of the department can do what I think he wants to do, an even more efficient job than he has done in the past. I could make a very long speech on this, and I should like to do so, but under the circumstances I am certain the minister knows what I have in mind.


George Clyde Nowlan: I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member has said. We have all had experience from time to time with this remissions branch and I am sure we are all very enthusiastic in unanimously paying tribute to the efficiency, courtesy and co-operation which every person receives in dealing with that branch. One may sometimes be disappointed at the answer which one's request may receive. But I know that is due to how the department, or the officials, view the facts of the case at that time.
I was going to ask a question about this increase because I took it from what the minister said this morning that we are not embarking on any radical change in probation or in the remission service generally since the report has been received only recently. I notice there is an increase of $22,000 in the expenditure for this year. Does that envisage any increase in the functions of this department, or just what is the answer?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, when we received the Fauteux report and the report of the joint committee, and shall in due course receive the two McRuer reports, we shall first of all have to consider carefully in the Department of Justice what the implementation of the recommendations of those various reports may cost in order that I may submit my report to my colleagues with a view to getting approval of that cost. And then, as I have already indicated, having regard to the fact that all of these matters have to be administered by the provinces, we shall have to get together with them and confer as to what should be and what should not be implemented. It will not be until all these things have been done that we shall have a policy in relation to which there could be

any item reflected in these present estimates. Therefore, the $22,000 has nothing to do with any changes.


Mr. Gillis:: I just want to say a few words on this item. Of course, most members of the house who have anything to do with the remission services know that they are doing a very good job with the equipment they have; but at this time what I am concerned about is not the fellow who is appealing to get out, but the position of the man who has done any time in any of our penitentiaries. I am concerned with the position he is in when he gets out. There is $30,000 earmarked for recognized prisoners' aid societies. I do not know what work they are doing. I know the John Howard organization is attempting to do something all the time. During the session of the house one runs into and receives letters from men who have served short sentences. The thing that strikes me is the fact that a man who does a year in a prison is treated in about the same way as a man who does 15 years when it comes to the matter of employment, once the stigma of a penitentiary term is hung on him. During this session three people who did a short term and were rooted out of jobs have written to me. One of them lost three jobs, when it was learned that he had served a short term in the penitentiary. The one who had lost three jobs had a position when he wrote to me, and he said to me he wondered what was going to happen next. He said, "As far as I am concerned, if I am thrown out of this job there is not anything left for me to do but to go back to the penitentiary". I believe it is that attitude on the part of employers particularly that causes so many of our repeaters to go back to the penitentiaries.
I think the magistrates have quite a responsibility. I do not think many of them realize, when they hand out a sentence of a year or 18 months to a kid who has taken a motor car for a joy ride, that they are sentencing that boy not to a year or 18 months but to life, because when the 18 months are over the theory is that the prisoner has paid his penalty to society and has washed the slate clean. But that is not so. The record follows the individual from job to job and, like the people who wrote to me during this session, they lose one job after another. One chap lost three jobs despite the fact he was doing his work satisfactorily, and he was waiting to lose the next one. The magistrates have to think of the future.
If a man commits a serious crime he has to be punished for it, but there are a whole lot of youngsters in this country, and it is going on from day to day, who commit
Supply-Justice
slight misdemeanours. Take the boy who takes a car. The magistrate thinks he is sentencing him to a year, but the boy is debarred from holding public office for the rest of his life. If he wants to go to the United States or to any other country he is classed as a convict and is not allowed to enter. His record follows him from job to job.
In addition to the matter of remission, there should be greater concern on the part of the public and on the part of those administering justice for the man who comes back and tries to rehabilitate himself. Despite the work of those recognized prisoners' aid societies, they are only touching the fringes. They aid those who happen to get into their hands, but by and large the men who try to help themselves run into these difficulties. Mind you, it is not only the employment agencies but also some of the employment offices.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Public opinion.


Clarence Gillis: Exactly. It is because of lack of education. It seems that everyone sits back and acquiesces in this kind of thing. It is time that someone in this country started to educate the public that the theory is intended to work in practice, and that when a sentence is served the stigma is not supposed to follow the individual for the rest of his life. If you are trying to do a good job in rehabilitating, then these men should be helped rather than pushed into the discard and back to the penitentiary. I have seen this happen, since the war particularly. It was not very noticeable prior to 1946 and 1947. Since 1947 I have noticed a stronger trend in that direction than I have ever seen before in this country.
If more money is needed for these voluntary societies, that is fine; but I believe there should be some agency of the Department of Justice whose responsibility it would be to try to educate the public into giving the man who wants to rehabilitate himself a break.
Secondly, I believe that magistrates should be cautioned against hanging a life sentence onto a boy whom they think they are sentencing to only a year, because it is a life sentence. I know of the case of a boy who got into difficulty, and all hon. members could name case after case, where other corrective measures could have been taken. I just wanted to say that, sir, because I think it is becoming a very serious problem in this country.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I had it marked down as something I had

Supply-Justice
intended to discuss but the hon. member may have dealt with it better than I could have done.
In addition to what the hon. member has said, I should like to say to the minister that in the next year, after he has received those reports and is negotiating with the provincial attorneys general on this matter of administration, I should like to see more done in the field of probation before conviction. In many of these cases I believe the place to start is at the beginning. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South said, once a chap is convicted and sentenced and goes into a jail or a prison he really goes to a school of crime in a good many instances. I am sorry to have to say that. I believe the province is responsible for setting up probation service. After negotiations I should like to see the law changed considerably to see whether a new system cannot be devised so that these young people who get into trouble can be treated in some way so that a sentence would be the last resort.
While I am on my feet there is one other matter I would like to bring up. After reading the report I concluded that it contains many good recommendations and there is one I cannot resist speaking about because I have always felt that poverty should not be a cause of imprisonment.
Under our present law there are many cases where a man goes into court and is fined for a breach of criminal responsibility and if he cannot pay his fine he is sentenced to jail for a certain period of time. I do not think that is good law. In the first place it really spells out the fact that poverty may be a cause for being put in jail and I do not think Canadian law in this modern age should carry such an implication.
I have one other matter with which I would like to deal. In my own experience I have seen men sent to jail for some small crime. Perhaps he has committed several small crimes, none of them too serious. Sometimes when these men come out the sheriff or a police officer has a collection of warrants and the minute the men are released from prison they are arrested again and confronted with another charge and a further sentence.
I would like to recommend to the minister, through you, sir, that he take steps to see if our law can be changed. It seems to me in the cases I am thinking about a man should come out with a clean sheet and should not have to face at the door the sheriff or a police officer who has a warrant to arrest him. I think the provinces recommended setting up provincial prison reformatories and this may take care of some of the cases of this type such as we have had in the past.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make just one suggestion to the minister following what the hon. member for Cape Breton South has already said, with which I agree, and it concerns the method of check-up employed by the police.
I believe the present system is wrong. I know of one or two cases where the police have gone to check on a man who had been in prison and served his sentence and presumably paid his debt to society.
In one case the police went into the establishment where the man was working and in front of his employer they proceeded to check on the man and also discussed him with his employer. That being the first occasion on which the owner became aware of the fact that he had an ex-prisoner in his employ, the employee lost his job immediately.
He moved to another town and took another job. He had not been there for more than a few weeks and was doing very well. The owner of the establishment where the man was working liked him but here again, lo and behold, in came the police to check up on the man and exactly the same thing happened. This went on for a long time and the young man became almost desperate. Finally he wrote to one or two hon. members of this house.
I think instructions should be given to the police that at no time must they interview ex-prisoners in the presence of their employers or while they are working. This should be done after working hours or at the home of the men or by appointment. The present system works a hardship on these fellows who have paid their penalty to society and I believe the present system should be changed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I had not intended to make any further remarks during the discussion of the estimates of this department but in view of the remarks made by some hon. members of the house and particularly those made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South it occurred to me that while I thoroughly sympathize with the views they expressed it would be unfortunate if a misapprehension were left amongst hon. members of this house generally.
The impression which I think could be left by these remarks is that first offenders are generally severely punished and chastized and receive prison sentences.
This may take place on some occasions but I have had some experience with the actual enforcement of criminal law in the past and I should think the hon. member for Cape Breton South would be very pleased to know that in cases of a first offence, particularly when young men are involved, the matter of

sentence is usually thoroughly discussed between the crown attorney and the police and the type of charge that is to be laid is given careful thought.
I do not know what takes place in other provinces but I know that is the way these matters are handled in Ontario. When the magistrate is about to pronounce sentence in practice he often consults the crown attorney, and I think properly so. In Ontario we have probation officers who before the sentence is handed out make an inquiry into the offender's background in order to ascertain what kind of home and family life he has had. Before passing out the sentence the magistrate refers to the report of the probation officer.
I thought these facts would be of interest to the hon. member for Cape Breton South and I felt it would be unfortunate if the impression were left in this house that it was the general practice in Canada to sentence first offenders to prison, because this is not so. As I say, I do not know what goes on in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick or some of the other provinces.


Clarence Gillis: It is done in some cases in Ontario, too.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: However, I have related the facts as they obtain in Ontario and probably in some other provinces. Concerning joyriding charges, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South knows, two types of charges can be laid. One is a charge that bears a mandatory minimum sentence of one year and there is also a lesser charge and it depends entirely on the circumstances in actual practice which charge is laid.
It is not the desire of any law enforcement officer to send people to jail for a first offence and, as I say, reports from probation officers are received before sentence is pronounced by the magistrate. The crown attorney is usually consulted as to the background of the offender. I think most magistrates-certainly those with whom I have been in contact in Ontario-carefully consider the circumstances before sending people to jail. As a matter of fact, in our part of the country the magistrates are usually criticized for not being severe enough. I think magistrates in general should not be criticized for that because I believe they do their best to try to keep people out of the schools of crime.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, after that lecture I feel obliged to say something. The question I would like to ask is this. What are we going to do with the fellow once he gets out?
The hon. member spoke of his personal experience in courts but it must be remembered that when he appears in court it is 67509-477
Supply-Justice
on behalf of a client and the client is protected by him. I was thinking of young men who do not have legal advice.


An hon. Member:: They are better off.


Clarence Gillis: I am going to cite a case that took place in the hon. member's own province. This took place back in 1945. I was wired from a town in Ontario. Two kids had been picked up on this joyriding business the hon. member for Oxford referred to. These young men were tried, convicted and sentenced in about 20 minutes without counsel. When they got in touch with me they had already been sentenced to a year in Guelph reformatory. The hon. member for Oxford does not see that kind of occurrence because when he is in court he is representing someone and they are protected, but there are many cases in the magistrates courts across this country where sentences are doled out pretty quickly and are grossly unjust.
I am not going to argue with the hon. member for Oxford because I think the way to start preventing the process of making a convict out of a kid who walks into that kind of situation, as any of us could have done between 16 and 18 years of age, is by protecting him from becoming a repeater as the years go by.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to prolong this discussion further but another minute or two is surely not going to make that much difference. I am sorry that the hon. member for Cape Breton South appears to have misunderstood my intentions. I was not quarreling with the hon. member; in fact, I am very sympathetic toward his views. I was just attempting to point out to him that in certain parts of Canada justice is not as harsh as he may think.
Back in 1945 in Ontario I do not know what went on there because there was another administration just prior to that and I do not wish to go into that subject. While I have represented clients in court I have had the job in the past for some little time of acting as crown attorney. The probation officer system has been brought in in Ontario in the last few years, as the Minister of Justice knows. More than that, I think I can safely say that the policy of the administration of justice in Ontario at the present time, and I expect in other provinces as well, is that no magistrate would convict anyone of any serious offence without that person being represented by counsel. The various bar associations in Ontario, and I believe throughout the country, have members who are ready to represent people who have not counsel

Supply-Justice
when it is felt that they should be represented. I certainly know that in our own area a magistrate would not hear a case unless the person was represented by counsel. That possibly applies in other parts of Canada, although it may not, but that is the way it is in Ontario.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wonder if the minister can bring us up to date on the Clifford Williams case, which he will recall was discussed earlier this session. I have had some correspondence on this matter representing quite a body of people in my district which raises three questions. First, why has no appeal been launched? Second, what sentences did Williams' accomplices get? Third, why is there such a disparity in sentences meted out in Canadian criminal courts?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am speaking from memory, but as I recall Clifford Williams was brought up on a number of charges of armed robbery when there was a rather severe epidemic of armed robberies in the district in which he was operating. It was suggested that he had used a toy pistol but there was evidence that members of the group with which he was associated had loaded revolvers with which this series of robberies were committed and that on one occasion one of his accomplices or associates had pistol-whipped a victim with his loaded revolver.
The magistrate sentenced Williams on a number of separate charges. The penalty for each case was not in itself so much, but instead of having the sentences run concurrently, which is sometimes the practice, the magistrate had these sentences run consecutively with the result that they added up to 28 years. That would have been an extremely severe penalty for any one of the offences, or for all of them put together for that matter.
It is true that in the remission branch of the Department of Justice we have a general rule that we do not release a prisoner until he has served half of his sentence. One of the main reasons for that is that in our view, and I think it is in accord with modern ideas of penology, one of the things which retard the rehabilitation of a prisoner is to have no hope. If he has some definite period like half of his sentence to which he can work to he has some incentive to try to rehabilitate himself while in prison and also if he is going to take any courses of education it indicates the period of time which he has in which to take them.
It does not follow from that that there are not cases in which the application of that rule would create hardship; and in Mr. Williams' case, as I have said on previous occasions and repeat now, it will be a question of his

rehabilitation as a person rather than the total of the consecutive sentences which will determine the date upon which we can release him.


Ralph Byron Horner: I should like to recommend to the minister that along with the remission service the federal government should also operate a rehabilitation service. It is one of the cruellest things a person can witness to see a prisoner come out of jail without sympathetic assistance to help him along the road during the first few hard months. This rehabilitation service could work along with the provinces and prompt those provinces where they are not doing anything at the present time to put into effect a system whereby the prisoner would be followed from the moment a charge is laid until he is rehabilitated after his sentence has been served, either in whole or in part.
Another thing I might mention. In this day and age it is my opinion that the big chain stores like Eaton's, Simpsons and others go out of their way to encourage people to buy on credit. They offer every inducement to people to go into debt. In a good many cases there are people who do not know how to control their own finances; people who are not too well educated can easily get over their heads in debt. They may be ignorant of the processes of law and therefore land in jail in many cases because they have gone into debt. They do not know what it is all about and they hate to go to a lawyer. They just do not answer a summons.
It is a pleasure for me to associate myself with the four or five hon. members who have spoken in this connection. I hope the minister will be prompt in giving this matter every consideration.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should like to say just one word, otherwise a wrong impression might be left. In the administration of the ticket of leave act we provide after-care supervision for 70 per cent of all parolees in the Dominion of Canada. When one stops to think of the large number of these people who go into small villages and communities where it is impossible to provide after-care, he will appreciate how large that percentage is. Within six years the percentage has risen from 15 per cent to 70 per cent. I am not suggesting that my hon. friend's idea is not a good one, but I do say that as far as the federal government is concerned we have already gone a long way toward that end. The purpose of our present effort is to bring these matters to public notice throughout the whole Dominion of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Yukon territorial court-
171. Administration, including administration of justice-Yukon Territory, $79,020.
James Aubrey Simmons: Mr. Chairman, on this item 171 I wish to bring very forcibly to the attention of the Minister of Justice, and through him to the attention of the government, a serious situation recently created in the Yukon Territory-a situation that cries out for correction at once and for a return to basic principles of justice and fair play. I refer to the directive issued by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources dated July 23 last. It is a directive in terms applying to all federal government employees as well as all members of the armed forces of Canada. It prohibits any such persons from acquiring any interest in territorial lands except for housing purposes, under the terms of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, Yukon Placer Mining Act and the Territorial Lands Act.
To fully appreciate the intent and effect of this directive it is only necessary to point out that under the Territorial Lands Act the word "land" includes mines, minerals, easements, servitudes and all other interests in real property.
I cannot speak out too strongly, Mr. Chairman, against this outrageously undemocratic directive. It is entirely without precedent and will result in the creation of two distinct classes of citizenship in this country, namely, a class with no unusual restrictions on its activities, and another class of citizens ruthlessly deprived of rights and freedom of choice that ought to be a normal part of their Canadian citizenship.
There may be some justification on ethical grounds for the issuance of such an order covering a very small group of civil servants whose particular work might give them preferred access to information on mining claims. But, in my opinion, it is a travesty of justice to make the directive apply to all government civil servants and to all members of the armed forces.
I have just returned recently from a visit to the Yukon and I found feeling in the territory against this arbitrary action to be running high. It is widely regarded as applying discrimination of the very worst kind. The civil service federation of Canada, White-horse-Yukon council, as well as the Whitehorse branch, Yukon No. 2, of the Canadian Legion, are already on record strongly protesting this violation of basic democratic rights. I want to urge upon the Minister of Justice with all the emphasis at my command that he take up this matter with his colleagues of the cabinet and have this unwise, 67509-477J
Supply-Justice
unsavory and undemocratic directive rescinded without delay.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Combines Investigation Act-
173. Restrictive trade practices commission, $82,330.
George Clyde Nowlan: I asked the minister this morning about the investigation in connection with the brewery case.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In that case, Mr. Chairman, the report was received some considerable time ago, over a year as a matter of fact. My hon. friend has probably read the report of the restrictive trade practices commission. It was noteworthy for the fact that they said in one of the paragraphs that an attempt had been made to bring the industry under control and in another paragraph that it was not actually under control. Therefore, without any question, it does pose quite a substantially difficult point.
We were unfortunate in that the counsel to whom we sent this matter for an opinion was taken very seriously ill, had to undergo an operation and had to go to the south to recuperate. However, on August 1 we had an opinion from him, and since that time, with the house sitting as it has, I have not had any chance to give it the careful study that we would have to give it in order to reach an opinion of our own. However, it will be considered at the earliest opportunity.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, this is far from being the most popular item to say anything about and I rather gather that if you do say anything you are reputed right away to be a friend of big business. However, it seems to me that the commission is affecting the ordinary businessman more and more and it might be wise for a few words to be said on this item. Under section 19 of the amending act of 1952 it would appear to the ordinary reader that the terms of reference of the restrictive trade practices commission were to appraise the effect on the public interest of arrangements and practices disclosed in the evidence.
We are having volumes of reports, and it would appear that we have reached the stage where, as far as the commission is concerned, their conclusions deal simply with the question whether there has been a fixation of price and their findings have not gone any further to determine whether in fact the fixation of price is or is not in the public interest. I am reminded to a certain extent of my practice before the air transport board where the term "public interest" is used quite extensively. In the normal course there it is not simply a case of whether additional

Supply-Justice
companies are to be allowed into the field because there is a certain demand for the service. In the ordinary course the board goes beyond that to determine whether it might not be possible that the additional companies coming into the field might go bankrupt and whether this might have a detrimental result for the whole country.
Finally, I should like to say that in the United Kingdom the monopolies and restrictive practices commission in their investigations go beyond what has been the case here in Canada. They go beyond a mere finding that there has been a lessening of competition in order to determine whether on balance the public have been harmed, unaffected or have benefited by the specific lessening of competition which has been shown. I should like to point out to the minister that more and more we are hearing people say that this failure to take the next step in an investigation is having a very detrimental effect in many cases. Though we have started out in the right direction, it may be that the net result will be bad. It will do the public little good if we have a situation where, although we can say that there have been conversations and the fixing of prices it results in numerous small business people being put out of business. I suggest that the minister keep a very close watch on this particular aspect of the work of the commission so that if we go across the line where the public interest is not assisted we may consider making some amendments in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
174. Office of investigation and research, $441,993.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to raise some questions under this item with regard to the investigation that has been going on in British Columbia into the united fishermen and allied workers' union. The matter has been raised in the house on previous occasions by questions but I feel that the time has come when the minister should be prepared to make some statement as to the situation. I am not going to make a speech. I think the minister knows that I view with serious misgivings the activities that have been carried on in connection with this union. There are two questions I should like to put to the minister and I hope he will comment upon both of them. First of all, in view of section 4 of the act, which was designed to protect the trade union movement generally, why is this investigation being carried on? Second, if a combine did exist it is my understanding that it is something that has resulted from certain general activities, and I should like to know why the investigation was not inclusive not only of

the one party to the agreement but also of the other party. In other words, how could such an investigation be launched into the union and not into the fishing companies who were parties to the agreements that have existed in British Columbia arising out of the bargaining that has gone on between those parties?
There is one other matter I should like to have clarified. I should like to know the situation with respect to the application for an injunction against the investigation launched by the union. I have a report here which appeared in The Fisherman, the union publication, the issue of July 3 last, in which it is said:
It will be at least a month before the application of the united fishermen and allied workers' union for an injunction to halt federal investigators from searching and seizing union records will come before the courts.
The question that arises in my mind is, first of all, what has happened just recently in respect of that matter. The second question is this. When an application of that kind is before the courts, on which a decision makes for delay, does the investigation proceed as if that application for injunction had not been made? If that is the case it would appear-and according to the report here the moves for delay have been made by the crown -that in effect the delay could be construed as an effort to ensure that the investigation was going to be all completed before the application was heard. I think there are several points there which the minister could probably clear up while we are having discussion of this item.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, in one way I am glad my hon. friend has raised this matter, because I have received a large number of letters from labour officials in various parts of Canada which indicate that they have an inadequate and incorrect impression of what were the facts involved. By correspondence I was glad to clear up the misunderstanding in their minds; but this present question will give me an opportunity to put the explanation on the record where it can be seen by everyone concerned.
In this particular matter, in May, 1956, as the result of a formal application received in November, 1955, the director under the Combines Investigation Act commenced an inquiry into the production, purchase and sale of fish and related products in the province of British Columbia. The application alleged, in effect, that the members of the united fishermen and allied workers' union were combining to fix and enhance the price of fish sold by them to the canners and to interfere with the activities of other fishermen

in a manner that amounted to a restraint of trade to the detriment of the public.
In relation to the question of a formal application, I think I should say that there are three ways in which proceedings can be commenced under the act. One is on a direction by the minister to the director, which we very seldom have to use. Another is on the initiative of the director himself. Then in those cases where a group of Canadian citizens feel that the department perhaps is not diligent enough in the enforcement of the act, six Canadian citizens may make a formal application requesting that the matter be investigated. That privilege is rarely used, but it was used in this particular case.
When we receive this application the act provides that the director-and I now quote from the act-
. . . shall . . . cause an inquiry to be made into all such matters as he considers necessary to inquire into with the view of determining the facts.
Once an inquiry has been commenced, it continues until-
. . . the director is of the opinion that the matter being inquired into does not justify further inquiry . . .
-or until it culminates in a written report from the restrictive trade practices commission to the minister.
The director, having come to the conclusion that the application raised an issue to be inquired into, sent representatives to examine the files of various associations of fishermen, including the union, an association of boat owners and an association of packers. That is the other party, I suppose, that my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni has in mind in this matter. As the result of information obtained upon some of these premises, the director subsequently obtained authority from the commission to examine the files of the packing companies. That is what my hon. friend has in mind, is it not?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes. One of the questions that has been raised, as the minister probably knows, is as to why the two aspects of this investigation were not launched simultaneously. I have heard it alleged that it was only as the result of an afterthought that the fishing companies were investigated.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. I do not suggest that
there was an afterthought. As a matter of fact, if an illegal agreement existed it would exist in relation to all these people. They are the alleged parties to an alleged agreement. Section 4 of the Combines Investigation Act, the one in question, provides as follows:
Supply-Justice
Nothing in this act shall be construed to apply to combinations of workmen or employees for their own reasonable protection as such workmen or employees.
Obviously, Mr. Chairman, there can be no abridgement by the combines branch or anyone else of the protection conferred by section 4 upon trade unions, and I do not think any person would wish to abridge this protection. If the activities in question are found to come within section 4, then that is obviously an end of the matter. The director took the view that in order to obtain the facts upon which to form an opinion as to whether or not section 4 did apply, he would have to see the files of the organizations I have mentioned. The purpose of any steps that have been taken to date, therefore, has been simply to ascertain the facts in the manner which the act provides.
Should the director, upon gathering the facts, be of the opinion that section 4 does not apply, that of course does not settle the matter. What happens in such a case is that if the director believes there is a contravention of the anti-combines legislation, he prepares a statement of evidence and presents it to the restrictive trade practices commission and to any parties against whom allegations are made in the statement. The commission, which is an independent body, then sets a time and place for argument, and at this stage any party against whom an allegation has been made has full opportunity to state his case and to show that section 4 does apply, or that the activities in question are in some other respect not within the application of the act. Even should the commission decide that section 4 does not apply, their conclusion is not binding because the only final authority on the subject is the court.
The union, a few days after the director commenced to examine its files, brought an action against the director in the supreme court of British Columbia, asking for a declaration that section 4 does apply to the activities into which the director is inquiring and asking for an injunction to restrain the inquiry. Some weeks ago the director undertook to hold the inquiry in abeyance, so far as the union is concerned, until the court had given judgment in these proceedings, provided they were not delayed and that proceedings should take place in a normal way.
While, as I have said, if the activities in question are covered by section 4 they are not subject to the Combines Investigation Act and that is an end of the matter, I would not, however, like to see any group take the stand that the director should not even *commence an inquiry into a situation where

Supply-Justice
a trade union was involved. Such an attitude would, in my view, greatly weaken the general public support which the act receives.
No such action has been taken by a union in the past. It was not taken, for example, in my own city of Winnipeg when the activities of a Winnipeg local of a Canadian union were inquired into in connection with the investigation into bread prices in Winnipeg several years ago. It goes without saying, of course, that when an inquiry has been started it is open to a union to show, either in the course of the inquiry itself or in the kind of proceedings that are now taking place in the court, that section 4 applies to the activities in question.
My own hope would be that organized labour in Canada, which has always been a strong supporter of the anti-combines legislation, would adopt the attitude that their files were always open to examination under the Combines Investigation Act, reserving, of course, the full right which they have to argue, when the facts have been made known, that any particular activities are within the embrace of section 4. If there are any activities that are being engaged in by trade unions today that are not within the embrace of section 4, then it seems to me that it is in everybody's interest, including the unions', to know that such is the case.
As to the manner of this inquiry, I understand that it was carried on in the same way as are practically all other inquiries under the Combines Investigation Act. The director under the act is responsible for commencing investigations. I can instruct him to commence an inquiry but I cannot instruct him to terminate one, nor can I tell him how to carry it on. That was the will of parliament, namely that the director should have a certain independence of action; and obviously if he is to carry out the purposes of the act he must be allowed a certain amount of discretion as to how to proceed. Should it appear that he is going about abusing that discretion, that, of course, is another matter which would involve the government in direct responsibility as to whether he were a proper official. There is, however, in my view nothing upon the record so far that would warrant the view that the powers of the director are being abused.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am not going to comment or discuss this matter any further at this time. I want to thank the minister for having made a fairly complete statement on this, and I know it will be studied by the many trade union bodies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Mr. Garson.l
176. Administration of the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries, including $50,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by the treasury board, $420,953.
George Clyde Nowlan: I simply want to say that ordinarily this is an item which promotes considerable discussion in the passing of these estimates. But in view of what I said this morning and the general process of reconditioning, shall I say, that is going on in the department,-though it is not directly related to penitentiaries, yet to some extent the matter of ticket of leave is connected with or depends upon this-at this time I do not propose to discuss the penitentiary administration. We have all read magazine articles and there has been a great deal of discussion so that a person could spend hours on the item, but I doubt if any useful purpose would be served at this time. I simply want it on the record that the official opposition is not entirely ignoring the fact we have penitentiaries, but we feel a discussion of this matter, in the light of the general streamlining of the department, could be done much better another year. There will be no further discussion, though there may be some questions.


Owen Lewis Jones: Last year the minister indicated that he intended to ask for increased penitentiary facilities in western Canada. At the time he was not sure at what point the new penitentiary would be built. Has the department come to any conclusion yet, or has the situation improved to such an extent that they are not going ahead with it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No decision has yet been reached as to the location.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When is it likely a decision will be reached?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is rather a large subject into which I do not want to go too deeply, because it will take up too much time. One of the important matters in the Fauteux report is whether or not we are going to have the responsibility of taking care of all prisoners whose sentences are over six months instead of, as we do now, for those whose sentences are for over two years. That would increase our responsibility as to the number of prisoners we would have in our charge, and that is a recommendation which has quite an impact upon our plans and which we will have to take into account not only in relation to this particular matter but right across the board.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I see there is an increase of $22,627 in this item. Does the John Howard society enjoy an increase along with the others?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, it does.


Harry Oliver White: Of about how much?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: From $40,000 to $50,000.


Harold Edward Winch: I have one brief question. May I ask the minister if he has now stopped that hellish practice of keeping a man over one year in solitary, in the hole, without any break whatever? He knows the cases. Has he stopped that practice?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -I always thought my hon. friend was a very good friend of mine, but this question he is asking now is really akin to the one, "When did you stop beating your wife?"


Harold Edward Winch: The fact is that you have not stopped beating your wife so far as that point is concerned. What are you going to do?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My answer is that I am not now beating my wife.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
178. Construction, improvements and equipment, $1,566,222.
Mr. Low:: I notice that under item 178 the sum of $200,000 is appropriated for new institutions. Can the minister tell us what those new institutions are?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is the item which is to acquire the land and provide for the erection of this penitentiary in western Canada, either in western Alberta or British Columbia, and another in eastern Canada. It, too, is subject to the remarks I made a few moments ago as to the effect of the Fauteux report upon the whole picture.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
645. Construction, improvements and equipment -further amount required. $150,195.
Hayden Stanton: Can the minister state whether the department expects to purchase any further property at Joyceville for the new penitentiary they are expecting to build in that area?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Hayden Stanton: Did the minister consider any other property before purchasing the Ben Franklin farm? Did they have any other property under consideration?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Hayden Stanton: In these supplementary estimates the purchase of this Joyceville property is in two items. One is $48,097 and the other is $73,250. According to Hansard of June 27 the price paid for one property was $123,000. Why does that amount not appear on the supplementary estimates?
Supply-Justice


Stuart Sinclair Garson: A portion of that was paid out of an item in the main estimates.


Hayden Stanton: The minister has informed us that they had other property in view in that immediate area. I know the area quiet well, and I wonder why they purchased this property of 427 acres. There are only about 175 acres of tillable land in the property, and they could have purchased property to the south or to the north with at least 80 per cent or 90 per cent tillable land. The balance of this property is only slash and swamp. Has the government made any offer for this other property, or how far have the negotiations proceeded in connection with this particular property?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, we have made an offer but so far it has not been accepted.


Hayden Stanton: I should like to ask the minister what offer has been made.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In fairness to the taxpayers and the government I do not think I should reveal the offer. We are trying to drive a bargain. If we fail, having regard to the fact that this second piece of property to which my hon. friend is referring is contiguous to the main part of our property, we will have to get it. This would mean we would have to expropriate it, and the whole question of what it is worth would have to be decided by the courts. I do not think we should commit ourselves to any statement on its value, even in parliament.


Hayden Stanton: It has been the considered opinion of many of the residents, not only of this particular district but throughout Kingston-the minister is well aware of it- that the object in building the penitentiary there is to relieve overcrowding in Portsmouth penitentiary and to bring out the shortterm prisoners, or what I should like to call the trusties, to this penitentiary. I also believe that the city is desirous of obtaining the penitentiary farm at Kingston to use the land for building purposes, for industry, and so on. The idea of this new penitentiary farm is to take the trusties to it.
As I said before, it is the considered opinion of many well-informed people in Frontenac and in Kingston that it would perhaps be much better if a penitentiary of this nature, which has a farming connection, were so placed that the trusties could not so easily escape. As we all know, not a year goes by without many men escaping and remaining at large for quite some time. It would have been better if the penitentiary had been built on one of the islands adjacent to Kingston. There are the islands of Amherst, Wolfe and Howe. Many of the farms on the islands contain from 90 per cent to 100 per cent

Supply-Justice
tillable land. It would be very much more awkward for the prisoners to escape from those islands than from a penitentiary on the mainland. I might say that many of the residents of that community know of these circumstances, and when it is mentioned to them they smile; some of them laugh out loud and others swear.
This particular piece of property, Mr. Chairman, has an assessed value-and I might say this assessed value is the new equalized assessment that was made by an experienced assessor within the last two years-of $20,125. For this property the department is paying $123,000. Perhaps $123,000 could have been tolerated had the property been expropriated, but I might inform the committee that the gentleman who owns this property is selling it in pieces and, according to the assessment, $123,000 is far in excess of the selling price of any other portion of the property.
As I said before, there are only 175 acres of tillable land. There are 250 acres of slash and swamp which is of no use whatsoever. Another portion of the land consisting of 205 acres of tillable land was sold at just about the same time for $25,000. Perhaps the buildings are not quite as good, but I should like to say to the committee that while there are exceptionally good buildings on the land that has been purchased by the department, still, as many hon. members here know, especially those whose constituencies are adjacent to Kingston, the Kingston penitentiary specializes in a dairy herd. They have an exceptionally large and good dairy herd, one of the best in Canada.
While the buildings on this particular place are exceptionally good, they are built for beef cattle and certainly are not buildings that are required for a dairy herd. They are not appropriate for the carrying on of that kind of dairy business. It will cost many hundreds, yes, thousands of dollars, to remodel the barns to take care of this dairy herd and the dairy equipment.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If it will reassure my hon. friend, may I tell him that it is our plan to move our beef herd to these particular premises and our dairy herd out to the farm at Collin's Bay.


Hayden Stanton: There is another point; the Canadian Bank of Commerce is one of the creditors of this estate to the extent of $200,000. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the Hon. Mr. Campbell, who is a senator, is a very good friend of the owner of this particular farm; not only that, but Senator Campbell is a director of the Canadian Bank of Commerce. If the price paid for this farm had been in the same proportion as the price at which the department is trying

to purchase the adjacent farm there would not have been enough assets to satisfy the Canadian Bank of Commerce.
I might say here, Mr. Chairman, one other thing. I know about how much the department has offered for the Franklin farm. If $123,000 is not too much for the property they have purchased, the price offered for this other farm which belongs to Mrs. Franklin is not half enough. If the price offered Mrs. Franklin is enough for her farm, the price of the Ben Franklin farm is exorbitant.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, when one takes all these facts into consideration; when one knows there is other property, much better property, which could have been purchased for less money; and when one knows that Senator Campbell is a director of the Canadian Bank of Commerce and that the Canadian Bank of Commerce is a creditor of this particular estate, it seems rather suspicious that this deal should have been put across. I leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. I know what the people around Joyceville think. As I said before, they smile and laugh out loud; some of the creditors swear. I leave it to members of the House of Commons as to what they think. I am not a lawyer, just a common chap, but I know the situation. The other residents know it as well and, as I said before, it looks rather suspicious.


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Chairman, since I represent the -constituency in which this land has been chosen for a new penitentiary I might say that I can truthfully speak on behalf of the residents of all of the constituency, the district of Kingston and the township of Pittsburgh. It is my considered opinion that they are most happy about it.
As far as moving to an island is concerned, since I have some experience of islands in that district, may I say it would be very unfair to ask the guards, or those in charge of administration, to live on an island and increase their cost and expenses because we might have to -consider, as we have done before in this house, an increase in salary for guards, which was granted by the minister's department and was highly appreciated by the guards. The guards have a very exacting job; therefore in this instance I think the penitentiary branch has shown very good judgment in having the penitentiary on the mainland. We should also think of available emergency services for both guards and convicts. When we had a riot a couple of years ago the armed forces were available to help, to step in and stop any riot which occurred and assist in the protection of the people of Canada as a whole.

I was rather surprised by the statement made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, to the effect that the people in the district were very dissatisfied, though I am sure he said it in all earnestness.


Hayden Stanton: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I did not say they were dissatisfied. I said they know the situation and they just smile. I did not say they were dissatisfied or anything of the kind; they just smile at the circumstances.


William James Henderson: Perhaps I took the smile on the hon. member's face as being a little deceptive concerning the attitude.
I must say one of the best examples of public relations I have ever seen occurred two weeks ago in the township of Pittsburgh, when every member of the council including the clerk attended on the commissioner of penitentiaries and discussed future plans for the development of the penitentiary in that area. It was gratifying to know that the council took sufficient interest in township affairs and in the development of the township and the district surrounding the area where it is anticipated that the penitentiary would be constructed to go and see the commissioner of penitentiaries and discuss their common problems with him. It is my considered opinion this is an advantage both to the township and to the Department of Justice.
When we talk about trusties being allowed to work on farms, it may be that some residents feel concerned or alarmed about escapees from the penitentiary. I have lived close to penitentiaries during a great deal of my lifetime; I have had quite a bit to do with people who live in penitentiaries, and I believe common sense dictates that when anyone escapes from these institutions the established pattern is that they get as far away from the penitentiary as they possibly can, and they do so as quickly as they can. They do not stay around the district at all.


An hon. Member:: Right from the horse's mouth.


William James Henderson: Across from Collin's Bay penitentiary there is one of the largest subdivisions in that district. Over 200 homes have been constructed in 14 months. This subdivision is situated, as I said, right across the road from the penitentiary, and the people who occupy these homes show no concern for escapees. This may be another case of an alarmist predicting that the people in the district would be concerned about this. I confess I have not heard any expression of concern about it. The only alarm I have encountered is that many people from Seely's Bay, which is in my hon. friend's riding,
Supply-Justice
have come to me asking if I could do something on their behalf to see if they could get a job in the penitentiary there.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Tell us about the land deal.


Hayden Stanton: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kingston has just spoken about the council meeting that was called to formulate plans. I am quite certain that if the land had been purchased north or south in that municipality or in any other district within the municipality the council there would also have met to formulate plans, just as they did in this particular case.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Frank Exton Lennard: We will say when we sit down, not you. Come out from behind the curtain.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Come on out and let us have a look at you.


Hayden Stanton: The hon. member for Kingston and I have a certain amount in common. We were both born on farms and spent our early boyhood years there. The only difference between us is that I am a Conservative and he is a Liberal, and he has followed a more lucrative path than I have.
I wish to state here, Mr. Chairman, that I did not say the residents of the area are afraid of prisoners escaping. I was referring to the fact that prisoners may escape, and I mentioned the difficulty in apprehending them. However, I shall leave the matter at this point so the people in the house can draw their own conclusions.


John Borden Hamilton: Is the minister not going to say anything in connection with the price for this property? Would he tell us if this firm is the same firm that was involved in the other transaction?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: For the reasons I have already stated and with all deference to my hon. friend, I do not think it is desirable to ask that we, on the eve of what may be an action in the exchequer court to determine the value of the additional property we are attempting to secure, should have to commit ourselves to the submission of any of these valuations. I am quite prepared to defend this whole transaction expressly upon the point of value when this matter is completed, but until it is completed I do not think we should be asked to do it.


Hayden Stanton: Mr. Chairman, about ten days ago I filed a motion for the production of papers. I was wondering if the minister could tell me when I could expect that request to be complied with.

Supply-Fisheries


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would my hon. friend remind me as to what papers he wanted in that connection?


Hayden Stanton: I wanted copies of all papers, correspondence and so on with regard to the purchase of land.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. It will be just a matter of days; the matter is in hand.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES Field services-
Protection branch-
140. Operation and maintenance, $3,288,650.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, when we last had the estimates of the Department of Fisheries under discussion on June 8, I was in the midst of addressing a question to the minister in respect to the retirement of patrolmen who are hired by the department on a seasonal basis. I had made some mention of a few reports I received of some of the earlier activities of the patrolmen before they were taken over by the department, and the minister questioned whether these activities were a recommendation for the job. I suggested that perhaps the experience they had might have prepared them to render more efficient service to the department.
The concern I have about this matter is that it has been represented to me in some cases at least that the compulsory retirement of some of these patrolmen at the age of 65 would have a bad effect upon the efficiency of the department because of the difficulty of replacing them with people with adequate experience. I was about to point out that my observation is that in many cases older fishermen who feel they no longer want to engage in full-time fishing activities are willing to enter into this work with the department.
I did ask a question related to this matter, of the Secretary of State when the estimates of the civil service commission were before the committee, in an attempt to determine whether compulsory retirement is a matter of decision within the Department of Fisheries or whether it is a matter of the implementation of a broad government policy through the civil service commission, and the Secretary of State indicated to me that it is a matter lying within the decision of the Department of Fisheries. That being the case I hope the minister will give it some consideration.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, the matter of retirement at 65 years of age is of course the .general practice in government service, but there is always the possibility of extensions. These patrolmen on the west coast are

seasonal employees, and the type of work they do is rather rugged, being mostly in isolated inlets and coastal areas. Another important consideration is physical vigour. It is quite true that when most men reach 65 years of age they simply cannot undertake the type of work that can be done by younger men. We do keep men on over 65 years of age if they are in good physical shape and if we cannot get suitable men of younger age. We do not want our Department of Fisheries staffed entirely with old men. It has been said by the opposition that the cabinet is old, but we certainly do not want to have the Department of Fisheries patrolmen made up of men over 65 years of age. Where there is a good case we do extend employment beyond the age of 65 years.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am glad to hear the minister say that. Actually when I raised the matter some time ago what was worrying me was that this was being done because of some directive passed in Ottawa, and was more or less beyond the power of the minister to control.
There is another related matter I should like to bring up. I have been impressed generally with the fine morale of the people in the Department of Fisheries, and I would not like to see anything done which would cause a lowering of that morale. I have had some problems brought to my attention which have arisen in the minds of some of the patrolmen in relation to the implementation of the five-day week. The reaction I get from some quarters is that some of the patrolmen would be quite willing to work more or less around the clock during the season in which they are engaged, particularly in territories where the application of the five-day week might be difficult to carry out. I need not explain to the minister that I am in favour of the five-day week, but some of these men feel that it is to their disadvantage to maintain inspection over the week ends.
I think we realize that patrolmen, particularly when working in isolated inlets along the coast of British Columbia, are hard to replace over the week end. I am wondering whether the minister has had this particular problem in view. Here again I am wondering whether there is freedom of action within the department to adjust the situation to the realities that exist, or whether this is carried out under some directive of the civil service commission.


James Sinclair: The application of the five-day week to the protection officers and the crews of our protection boats has worked out quite satisfactorily by the use of relief

crews. The problem raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is one affecting his riding, your riding, Mr. Chairman, and my own riding. In all these ridings there are patrolmen operating in isolated inlets where it is sometimes difficult to relieve them.
These men are hired on a seasonal basis. It is quite true that they are very busy at times, but there are also slack periods when the fishing season is closed during week ends generally in British Columbia. We have found generally that the value of conservation is so well thought of that we do not have much of a problem in carrying out patrols during closed seasons.
We have worked out a system of compensatory leave which is granted at the end of the fishing season to make up for the extra time worked. Some of these patrolmen are hired with their boats. We pay a charter fee for the boat as well as a salary to the man. These men want compensatory leave for their boats as well, and that is just a little beyond my power to grasp at the moment. We have not yet agreed to pay charter rates for compensatory leave for the boats after the end of the season.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I heard something of what the minister is talking about and I shall not pursue the matter, because I do not claim to know more about the department than does the minister. There is one other matter I should like to mention. The minister referred to the increasing appreciation of the value of conservation on the part of commercial fishermen in British Columbia, and I agree with what he has said. But there is increasing concern over the depredations of the fisheries by sports fishermen, particularly by yachts and cruisers which come north from United States ports. I think most people in British Columbia recognize the value of the tourist fishing industry, but it has been brought to my attention that in many cases these large sports vessels, which I understand are allowed by regulations to come into our waters, take advantage of our latitude in this matter. Some of our United States friends have made the statement to Canadians that they thought we were suckers for allowing them to get away with what they do.
As an example, it was brought to my attention that a United States boat took 99 spawn-ers in Muchalat arm at the mouth of the Gold river. That boat travelled by sea, I suppose from a Puget sound port, directly to the fishing grounds and returned the same way and did not spend a dollar of tourist money in British Columbia during the few days fishing.
Supply-Fisheries
This is a problem to which we should give attention. I understand that some additional restrictions have been put into force as to the number of fish that can be caught, which I believe is a move in the right direction. This is a problem which we expect the Department of Fisheries to keep very well in hand.


James Sinclair: There is the happiest of relationships between the sports fishermen and the commercial salmon industry in British Columbia. The sports fishermen caught somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000, a quite considerable number of fish. The commercial fishermen are very glad to have such a large active group as the sports fishermen to help them in their efforts against the encroachment of power into these fine fishing streams.
My hon. friend referred to the yachts and cruisers which come up and go back without spending one dollar. This is something which is aggravating to the ordinary sports fisherman in British Columbia, but I would be most hesitant to introduce a licence fee for sports fishing in British Columbia, because that is about the only area in Canada where a Canadian citizen can fish without having to pay even a $1 licence fee. Since there is no licence fee for Canadians it would be rather difficult to impose a licence fee on United States fishermen.
I know that in various provinces across the country there is a considerable difference in the sports fishing licence fee for Canadian residents and for foreigners. However, that matter is under study right now. We hope to come up with some new policy during next winter but, as the hon. member has pointed out, we have taken the first steps already in restricting the catch in the most famous of the fishing areas, Rivers inlet and Phillips arm. The question is under continuous review.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
141. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $285,950.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: I do not want to be the only member jumping up here, but there is one point I should like to mention to the minister on this item. As I understand it, this item has to do with the provision, among other things, of accommodation for some of the fisheries officers. I make this suggestion for his consideration. Where housing accommodation is being provided for officers of the department I suggest that consideration might be given to including the provision of one or two basic items such as kitchen stoves and the heating system. It has come to my attention that in different communities they have

Supply-Fisheries
different types of fuel and the type most easily available should be used. Sometimes a man is moved to another area. In such a case he may make arrangements with the incoming man to take over that equipment, but in some cases that is not feasible because the man coming in may have his own.
It seems to me that it would be a reasonable arrangement if we were to provide the necessary money to equip the houses with the basic items which would go along with the house, and which are heavy and difficult to move. I know that the place I rented in Ottawa last winter was equipped with a range and a refrigerator, and when landlords are willing to do that sort of thing it does not seem to me unreasonable for us to make provision of that sort in isolated places.


James Sinclair: We do not do that at the present time in these fisheries officers homes which we build in isolated areas where there is no other housing accommodation. We do pay the removal expenses on the furniture of our officers when they are moved. Most of our officers in these places have a fairly long tenure there, and once they get in one of these nice homes they are very reluctant to move. We do pay the removal expenses on their furniture if they are posted away from one of these government houses.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisheries research board of Canada-
149. Headquarters administration, $135,070.
George Clyde Nowlan: This is the first item on the fisheries research board, and there are two matters I wish to draw to the minister's attention in connection with the board. I am sure we all appreciate the studies and work which have been done by the board. Some most interesting research work has been carried on, and I believe the expenditure is one which is thoroughly justified.
I spoke to the minister this morning, and I should like to ask him now concerning one report issued by the research board; then there is another one I wish to ask him about later. First of all I should like to refer to the one dealing with the green crab. If anyone wants to read a thriller or a detective story or crime mystery novel on the Hitchcock style I think he should read this little booklet on the predations of the green crab. In short, apparently this is a new infestation which has been working up the Atlantic coast. Many years ago it was found in southern waters, and apparently due to the slight change of temperature and the fact that our waters have become warmer during the last few years this crab has been moving up our coast. Five years ago it was off the

coast of Maine and now it is at my own back door. It is moving altogether too fast to suit me, because it is in Minas basin and I can throw a stick out and hit them in the water.
Apparently it is an infestation which is going to cause very serious damage, particularly to the clam fishery. In this booklet, which I presume all members have received, there is an illustration of a little wooden trap with wire mesh siding. The trap is 24 inches long, 18 inches wide and 12 inches high. Yet two of these traps set out for a period of 20 days caught 14,965 crabs; just 35 short of
15,000	in 20 days. The only reason they did not catch more is that the officers in charge could not empty them fast enough. Every time they went out the traps were completely filled again.
According to the report, what is left of the clam fishery, limited as it is by infestations, restrictions and so on, will be completely destroyed by the green crab unless the department or the research board evolve some method of dealing with them. Apparently when this report was published a few weeks or a few months ago they had no hope of being able to do that because there was no way in which they could be controlled without the use of poison which would remove many other species as well. Since it is a matter of substantial importance to the clam fishermen, and since it also illustrates the very useful work which the board is doing, perhaps the minister could give us a word or two on it at this time.


James Sinclair: I must thank the hon. member first of all for his very well justified praise of the fisheries research board of Canada. It is one of the very top flight research boards in the world, one reason being, of course, that we are one of those nations which have a national department of fisheries and national control over fisheries. They have done splendid work in many fields.
When I was in Russia last summer I saw how large their fishery establishment was. They have a larger fishery than we have, but I am sure that the quality of their work is no better than here at home. That is why I am so keen to have two of the top Russian scientists here this fall to visit our research stations.
As far as the green crab is concerned, that is something new to Canada. As the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has said, that particular publication of the fisheries research board reads more like a mystery thriller than their usual publications with their very long words and obscure phrases. I think it was in 1951 that the

green crab was first noticed in the bay of Fundy. It has moved up from Chesapeake bay, up the Maine coast-


George Clyde Nowlan: In 1954 it was only as far as Passamaquoddy.


James Sinclair: That is even later than I
thought. The scientists relate its appearance to the general warming of the waters of the north Atlantic. It is found all over the world in warmer waters, and I understand that nowhere in the world has any satisfactory way been found to check it. It is impossible to poison the sea. We find it very difficult even to poison lakes to kill coarse fish or lampreys but it is impossible, of course to poison the sea.
The main method of attack is to try to discover some other animal which will kill them or some disease or virus with which we can affect them. The particular damage this crab does is to shellfish. Although it is only a small crab, it has very powerful claws and can crush small clams, oysters and mussels. One shellfish which it does not attack is the barnacle, and that is one where we would welcome some parasite in order to destroy it.
Our scientists are working on the problem. They are trying to find some other animal which will kill this crab or some disease which will wipe it out. One ray of hope comes from another branch of fisheries science, oceanography, because the indications now are that the waters are beginning to get a little colder. There may be one of those long cyclical retreats, in which case the crab will retire down the coast.


George Clyde Nowlan: There is one other publica-cation I want to draw to the minister's attention, particularly in view of the discussion we had a year ago when I suggested that the fishing regulations which had closed all the rivers along the Northumberland strait should perhaps be relaxed by the department. At that time the minister appealed to my spirit of conservation. He suggested that we were all very interested in preserving the salmon fisheries, that these restrictions were necessary, and that at the moment at least he could not consider any relaxation of them.
I should like to draw the minister's attention to another very interesting report which has been prepared by the research board. He will find it on page 13, No. 139, progress reports of the Atlantic coast stations, for November, 1955. This deals specifically with the problem of salmon fishing on the eastern coast. It points out that there we have had, ever since 1874, records of catches taken. Records are prepared showing the catches from year to year, the parent run from year
Supply-Fisheries
to year and the fact that there we have a six-year term between the parent spawning and the offspring return. Having compared all the records of the catches since 1874 the board now comes up with this summary, and here I am quoting from page 14 of the progress report:
It can plainly be seen that no relationship whatsoever is evident between the sizes of catches from parents and their offspring. This conclusion has been tested mathematically and shown to be a safe one.
I suggest that if that deduction is correct -and I am sure it is one that the minister would not question, coming as it does from his officials-I think the time has come for him to reconsider these regulations, because what they were dealing with were regulations relating to sports fishing in the rivers, not to fishing in the sea. It is said here that in the rivers in the years in which the biggest catches have been taken they have the biggest return, whereas as to years in which there was a very small catch, six years later there may have been none return. At least that is the summary. I simply am bringing the matter to the minister's attention now, not in the regular manner. I wish he would read that report, then apply it to the discussion we had a year ago, and see whether he could not consider some relaxation of these regulations.


James Sinclair: I have not only read that report but I have read much else on the Atlantic salmon, because I think it is the thorniest problem which the department has to face. It is a very valuable resource, both commercially and especially as far as sports and tourist attractions are concerned. There is no doubt that over recent years, on the whole the catch of Atlantic salmon has declined.
We have gone into the main reasons previously. One is the great increase in the number of fishermen and the opening up of these streams right to the headwaters with roads in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland; the five-day week which gives everybody a couple of days instead of just an afternoon or evening to fish; and holidays with pay. The second factor is the increasing industrialization in New Brunswick. At times we hear from the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska about how far behind New Brunswick has fallen, but we see the other side of the story. This industrial use of water for industry, for hydroelectric dams; the pollution of water because of industry; this spruce budworm spraying, which is another effect of industrialization, all these things take their toll of Atlantic salmon.

Supply-Fisheries
In the report which the hon. member mentioned I think he has taken that remark a little bit out of context. There is no direct and immediate relationship between the number of fish removed from a stream on the Atlantic coast and the returning catch. The Atlantic salmon spends three years in a stream. Much more important than the actual catch are other factors such as the presence of food in the stream, the type of winter, the availability of spawning beds because of variations of high water and low water, depending on the climate. But it is certainly a factor, and one which we can control.
I am quite heartened by the very good work which has been done by the Atlantic salmon co-ordinating committee, which is composed of our deputy minister of fisheries and the four deputy ministers concerned with fisheries in the provinces. We have brought in uniform regulations. We have cut down on the fishing season in the hope of restoring the salmon fisheries on the Atlantic -coast. We are sure we can do it. We have good reason for that. Most of our reason is based on the fact that we have done this on a much bigger scale on the west coast. We are certainly getting public appreciation and cooperation.
One of the reasons I think it is important to prosecute this company which for the third time sprayed one of our hatcheries is to draw to their attention the fact that we regard this resource as an extremely valuable one, and to serve notice on them that they must be more careful in the future than they have been in the past.
But I think I can give a fairly progressive report1-not an optimistic one-and say that I believe we have turned the corner in connection with restoring the Atlantic salmon resources for both commercial fishermen and sports fishermen.
I certainly do not intend to get into any argument at this time as to the relative value of the commercial fishery and the sports fishery. Our job is to restore the fish so there will be an adequate catch for both these fisheries.


George Clyde Nowlan: I simply drew the minister's attention to the matter. I am not quarrelling with what he said, but apparently the restriction of catches is not the most effective way in which this objective is to be accomplished. I think the last sentence in the report bears out that statement:
Therefore if we want to increase our salmon stocks we must look for more promising ways than merely placing further restrictions on fishing.
That is, of course, what the minister himself said a few moments ago in dealing with the

problem. I am suggesting that less emphasis should be placed on the restriction of sports fishing and that more emphasis should be placed on increasing the number of fish.


James Sinclair: We are trying to approach the problem from every angle.


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to ask one question with reference to this budworm spraying. I am not referring to the unfortunate occurrence to which reference has been made, but I want to ask the minister whether a report is now or will be available with regard to the general effect on salmon growth of budworm spraying. Some conflicting statements have been made. Various pseudo experts have said that it may not affect the salmon, while other officials come along and say it will. Now that we have the cycle of growth nearly complete, I am just wondering whether the minister can say something about the matter.


James Sinclair: I shall be very happy to make a few comments on that matter, Mr. Chairman. About two or three years ago I brought the top scientists of our department to a meeting of the Atlantic salmon association, which is perhaps the major association of the Atlantic salmon fishermen sports, and we discussed the whole problem.
To begin with, the spraying for the spruce budworm is just as essential for the continuance of the salmon fishery as it is for the continuance of the pulp and paper industry in New Brunswick. For this reason. If the spruce budworm is allowed to spread and destroy the forests, then there is no cover for insect life on which the small salmon and trout feed. The rivers are ruined because there is no hold-back of the moisture from rain. Then by this run-off the gravel beds on which they spawn are washed away. We certainly realize that this spraying for spruce budworm must be done. But we should like to see it done in a way which would damage the fishery as little as possible.
As far as the effects of the spraying are concerned, we have quite dramatic evidence after three years' study. On the Miramichi river the actual spraying concentration, as I recall it, was a very light one. But if it is as effective on the spruce budworm on the trees as it is in the streams-not on the salmon, but on the life in the streams on which the salmon feed; the fry, the smolt, and the parr-it will serve the purpose intended. In the first three years of their life in the upper Miramichi the young salmon need insect life for food. The spraying almost completely wiped out the insect life in the stream itself. It has a consequent effect actually on the small salmon. That was shown in the hatcheries where their feed

was not affected. Other places were affected by quite heavy concentrations.
We have no hostility to the spraying. We know it must be done. What we tried to work out, when they showed us their spraying plans, was to keep them if possible away from the fringes of streams and especially to avoid all our hatchery areas. On the whole it has worked out fairly well. We know that in the years ahead, when the six-year return comes, there is going to be very poor fishing in parts of the Miramichi because of that loss. The thing we must do is step up our hatchery program in order to restore the natural balance, because we hope by that time the necessity for spraying will be gone and that insect life in the streams will be back to normal. Then we can build up the streams. Last year we put over 10 million salmon fry into the streams down there. I think we can step up that program in the years ahead provided, of course, the planes do not come across our hatcheries and spray them again.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to join with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and the Minister of Fisheries in expressing appreciation of the work that is being done by the fisheries research board. I have in my hand a little clipping which came to my attention. It is taken from the issue of the Campbell River Courier which reached me this morning. I thought the minister might refer this matter to the fisheries research board for studies. The headline reads "Blackfish doing Rock and Roll?" The story states:
A roving blackfish or killer-whale caused plenty of excitement Saturday as it put on acrobatic display in the discovery passage waters off Big Rock.
Mrs. Boyd Wilson, Big Rock store, reported the creature was rearing and tossing in the water and appeared to have some sort of parasite, like a gigantic lamprey, attached and causing the eccentric thrashing about.
Mrs. Walter McClean also saw the creature and said that it was rearing and leaping right out of the water, poising on its strong tail, and then would hit the water with a resounding thud. The "jitter-bugging and waltzing" continued until it was abreast of the police station, then course was changed towards the Indian village. It was last seen heading south.
What was the mystery of the monster of the deep?
Perhaps I could send this across to the minister to turn over to the fisheries research board for appropriate study. In a more serious vein, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister what the situation is in regard to the blackfish as a salmon predator on our coasts. I have had one report given to me that there were 25 salmon found inside one young blackfish which was caught in a seine net. I was wondering how serious a predator the blackfish is.
Supply-Fisheries


James Sinclair: The word "blackfish" at home is used rather loosely to describe either a porpoise or a killer whale. I do not think the porpoises are a very great threat to the salmon. If they do get caught in the seines or in the gill nets they do a fair amount of damage. The killer whales are probably the most dangerous fish, and they will even attack great whales or sea lions. Most fishermen watch them pretty carefully and keep away from them. I think people often get more alarmed by the playful thrashing of these porpoises than there is really any need for.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
152. To provide for federal share of administrative expenses of the great lakes fisheries research committee established jointly with the province of Ontario: and to provide for a program designed to eliminate lampreys in the Great Lakes, $485,000.
George Clyde Nowlan: This is a very large item to provide for the federal share of the administrative expenses of the great lakes fisheries research committee. I wonder if the minister can tell us just how that matter stands now. We remember that a year ago there was to be an international commission set up, and I notice there is no provision for the international commission in the main estimates, though in the supplementary estimates there is a small item appearing for the first time. Am I right in assuming that our United States friends are slow in getting the commission in operation and therefore we have had to finance through the committee rather than through the commission? I trust that is not an augury of what there will be in the future. Just where does the commission stand?


James Sinclair: We prepared this item before the commission actually had been set up. There was a little slowness, not here, in getting full parliamentary sanction for the commission, but in the expectation of the setting up of the commission we put in this item. There is a supplementary vote for the actual cost of administration, but the commission will handle this vote.


Mr. Huffman:: I should like to ask the
minister the percentage of the value of fish produced in Canada under provincial control?


James Sinclair: All commercial fisheries as a whole, in round figures, have a market value of about $200 million, of which probably 10 per cent is from the great lakes and prairie areas. About 5 per cent would be from the great lakes.


Edward Blake Huffman: Has any request been made to the minister to have fishing operations on lake Erie brought under the jurisdiction of the federal fisheries department?

Supply-Fisheries


James Sinclair: We have had no official request. As I have pointed out before, under our constitution fisheries are the responsibility of the federal government. But over the years some provinces by agreement, have been given the authority to handle sports fishing. I think that is an arrangement which has worked out very well. They are closer to the sports fishing than we are, and they can tie it in with their game operations as well as with their tourist trade. Seven of the 10 provinces handle sport fishing.
In Ontario they also handle the commercial fishing on the great lakes. This is one substantial commercial fishery which is not operated by the federal Department of Fisheries. At various times we do receive letters from great lakes fishermen asking that we regain administration of commercial fisheries. We have taken no action on that. If the province of Ontario chose to relinquish control of commercial fisheries we would, of course, have to exercise our constitutional responsibility. The great lakes fishermen are one of the relatively small groups of commercial fishermen not under the direct jurisdiction of the federal Department of Fisheries.
I might say that we pass on the sports fishing regulations in Canada. They come here from the various provinces, are reviewed by us, and then are subject to the approval of the governor in council here in Ottawa. But the practical management of sports fishing in itself in seven of the 10 provinces is in the hands of the provincial administration.


Edward Blake Huffman: If the fish operators were under federal control, can the minister say whether they would have the advantage of vessel insurance and unemployment insurance?


James Sinclair: So far as vessel insurance is concerned it has been a move that has been welcomed by the fishermen on both coasts. We in the federal Department of Fisheries administer that through our officers; certain officers are assigned to that work, but they are not full-time on it. Since we have no officers of that description in the great lakes area it has been impossible for us to bring in vessel insurance there. We give coverage at 1 per cent for vessels up to $7,500.
So far as unemployment insurance is concerned, we hope to bring in this plan of coverage by April 1 of next year. It will, of course, come under my colleague the Minister of Labour, and he has unemployment insurance officials right across the country. He is going to have to depend upon the federal Department of Fisheries for

information as to the total catch which would qualify a fisherman to be regarded as a fulltime fisherman. We have not such records for the great lakes. Those records will have to be obtained from the lands and forests department of Ontario. I am sure it is my colleague's intention that when the unemployment insurance comes in it will be applicable in the central areas as well as on the coasts.


Edward Blake Huffman: I notice that a part of this item is for lamprey control. What amount has been spent on lamprey control by the department?


James Sinclair: We are putting up all the money for lamprey control. On the research program we share the cost with the government of Ontario; we are each putting up $15,000 toward administration. There is about $460,000 being spent on the extermination of the lamprey this year. This coming year, for the first time, we will have a budget presented to us by this international commission, but in the last two years we have been carrying on under the department this work of lamprey control.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
159. To provide for the extension of educational work in co-operative producing and selling among fishermen, $80,000.
Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: This item provides $80,000 for the extension of educational work in co-operative producing and selling. It appears to be a fairly modest amount if this work is to be done right across Canada. Does this apply to the fishermen right across Canada, or is this a vote for a particular area? For example, does this apply to the fishermen of the prairie provinces?


James Sinclair: We have given this assistance to the areas we administer and to the universities which have specialized in such work. Last year St. Francis Xavier University down in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, which is a small university-but I do not think any university in the world has done a finer job in the field of co-operation than has this university- received $46,000. Then the fisheries school at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, Quebec, received $24,000. We have a small course in co-operation at the University of British Columbia, and the amount available to them is $10,000. That has not been fully spent in recent years.
At the University of British Columbia we are trying a new approach. I think the education and co-operation have been pretty well done across the country, but we are one of the few fishing countries of importance that do not have professional schools for fishermen. In the last two years at the University

of British Columbia we have run schools for practising commercial fishermen, which have been very successful with the high-liners of the west coast. A good cross-section of fishermen attended the course during the past winter, and my hope would be that we could extend that type of education to other fishing centres on the east coast and in the central provinces.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The specific question I wanted to ask was whether anything was being done under this item in the prairie provinces. I was thinking particularly of my own province of Manitoba, where there are quite a large number of fishermen. I realize this is a very small amount of money to be spent across Canada, but I am wondering how the benefit of this type of education-incidentally, I approve thoroughly of it and would like to see the item enlarged-is brought to the actual level of the fishermen. So far there has been excellent research work and educational work done in this respect in the universities, but at what point does it get to the actual fisherman who is doing the fishing? What machinery or what facilities are there for bringing it to the fishing community and setting up actual study groups in order to bring this into effect?


James Sinclair: Perhaps I used the wrong words when I said "at the university". At these three universities the work is done by the extension service of the universities and is taken actually to the fishing areas. In recent years Manitoba members have asked that this work be extended to the prairie provinces. We have been in touch with the University of Manitoba and suggested that we would be sympathetic to setting up a similar course at the University of Manitoba if they put forward a syllabus similar to the one at the University of British Columbia, at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere and at St. Francis Xavier. So far we have had no response at all from them along these lines.


George Clyde Nowlan: One word in extension of what the minister has said, particularly with respect of St. Francis Xavier University. I have been associated as solicitor with the cooperative union, and also with the maritime united fishermen, a co-operative undertaking of which this was the genesis. I do not know of any money which has been spent more effectively or on which there has been a greater return than the money made available to the extension department of St. Francis Xavier. The work they have done has been for the fishing communities all over the maritime provinces. Dr. Coady and others who have been associated with that work have made a contribution which is absolutely
Supply-Fisheries
incalculable, and goes far and away beyond the amount of money spent.


James Sinclair: I heartily agree.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: One more question on the same item. Is there any liaison between the department of Indian affairs, which I realize comes under another minister, and this department in this type of work among Indians on Indian reserves? In the province of Manitoba, as the minister probably knows, a great many of our Indian reserves are situated on lakes, so the chief occupation, the chief source of income, I would think, would be from fishing. Some effort has been made, I know, outside the aegis of the government entirely, to bring about this idea of the co-operative handling of processed fish among the Indians; but I am wondering whether the Indian department, in co-operation with this department, does any actual work among the Indians in that respect?


James Sinclair: We do in British Columbia, in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories, where we actually administer the commercial fishing. We do not in the three prairie provinces, so I cannot speak of whatever co-operation there may be between the Indian affairs department and the department of the provincial government which administers their fishing. Great Slave lake, which is one of our most profitable fisheries, for trout and whitefish, is an example of where the interest of the Indians has been very closely protected, and an endeavour made to help them to engage in the commercial fishery.
In British Columbia I do not think we have to teach the Indians very much about fishing, because they are amongst our most successful fishermen. They have their own organization, the native brotherhood, which deals directly with the Department of Fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
161. To provide for assistance In the construction of vessels of the dragger and/or long liner type, subject to such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $200,000.
George Clyde Nowlan: This item deals with assistance to draggers and long liners, and again brings in the perennial problem of those trawlers fishing beyond our territorial waters. We know they are licensed, of course, to operate outside the 10 or 12-mile limit, and it has been a problem for many years on which I am not going to elaborate now. But it is a satisfactory point, I think, at which to remind the minister of the request I made to him when the estimates were before this committee previously and he told me that he thought he would be able to produce the

Supply-Fisheries
Curtis report on territorial waters and file it for the benefit of members.
I would also like to have him comment on the situation as it now exists, in view of the rather interesting statement made by the Prime Minister the other night when he told us of the approach our government is going to make to the United Nations gathering in San Francisco, I think later this year. I think the situation should be clarified quite a bit, and I should like the minister to do it now.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, I am just a little embarrassed, and I do not embarrass easily, about having made that commitment last year that I would be very happy to table a copy of the Curtis report. Dean Curtis, the head of the law faculty of the University of British Columbia, was engaged to prepare a report on territorial waters for the government, which would be the basis of our presentation at the general assembly of the United Nations this fall on this matter of territorial waters.
I read the report, and naturally assume that because part of the report involved fisheries, that portion of the report could be made public. The whole report, however, is a document of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and he has told me that while he sees no reason why the report should not be made public, though it is a departmental report, he prefers to hold it, since it is the basis of the case which Canada will put forward at the United Nations general assembly. I do not think it would be wise to state our case publicly, or expose our hand, before we take the rostrum.


George Clyde Nowlan: Has that not been done fairly well now?


James Sinclair: As far as the statement made by the Prime Minister is concerned, the hon. member probably noticed that the fishing cabinet ministers, my colleagues from Newfoundland, from Nova Scotia, from New Brunswick, and myself were very pleased the evening the Prime Minister gave an indication of what the Canadian position would be.
Speaking from memory, I think he said that we would naturally respect a decision of the international court of justice such as in the Anglo-Norwegian case on the validity of base lines along the coast rather than following the sinuosities of the coastline. Then I think he said further that he felt that the interest, especially of fisheries, could be much better served if we had a 12-mile territorial zone rather than the present 3-mile territorial zone. That certainly is something which the fishing industry and the fishermen's organizations across the country have been advocating for some time.


George Clyde Nowlan: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I hope this is one which the minister will see that our government presents as forcibly and as rapidly as possible, so this matter can be settled while the minister is still in charge of this department.


James Sinclair: That will be for some time, I think.


George Clyde Nowlan: He has a few more months to run, but let us get it done this fall.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
627. Industrial development	service-further
amount required, $478,000.
George Clyde Nowlan: I notice that in the main item we have a reduction of $385,000, and then in the supplementaries we have $478,000 put back. I am wondering just what is the explanation for what looks like a reduction one minute and an increase the next?


James Sinclair: At the time we had to prepare last fall for our main estimates we had not yet completed an estimate of the cost of this Valleyfield experimental station which will be opened this fall. This is a new fisheries experimental station in Newfoundland in which we are going to try to improve the processing, the packaging and the merchandising of salt cod, which is an extraordinarily important item of commerce in the Atlantic provinces and in the Caribbean area, but which has fallen behind other types of food in its appeal as far as the public is concerned. Our plant is just about finished. I think it will be opened in October and we are quite frankly expecting real progress to be made in the salt cod field because of that plant.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell the committee what the present situation is with regard to the fishermen's wharf at False Creek in Vancouver? Dispatches I have here indicate that work has been stalled for about a month.


James Sinclair: This is a public works matter but the minister knows I am very keen on it. This is a quite large installation at False Creek, a small estuary in Vancouver harbour, not a dock to handle fish but a moorage for our big ships, the seine vessels. It was held up last month because of a dispute as to whether the dredged material was going to be dumped on the upper part. The most natural area was leased to a sawmill, which objected. The Minister of Public Works assured the house that this matter would be settled very quickly. My deputy minister has just returned from British Columbia. He reported about this project, and told me that the work is going ahead again.


Howard Charles Green: There is no more trouble?


James Sinclair: This is not my department, but as far as I know there is no more trouble.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
636.	To provide, subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes, (a) for payment of assistance to producers of salted fish on products designated by the governor in council, in the amount of 50 per cent of the laid down cost of salt used in their 1956 production, and (b) for payment of assistance in respect of the 1955 production as specified in vote 795 of the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1955, but not previously paid, including authority to charge administrative costs to vote 160 of the main estimates, 1956-57, $582,000.
George Clyde Nowlan: Can the minister say a word concerning item 636? This is the item concerning salt assistance, and I think the policy was changed last year. Isn't that the one included here?


James Sinclair: No, the salt assistance program is the policy under which we assist the salt cod trade by paying half the cost of salt to fishermen. The complaint made by hon. members earlier this year was to the effect that the form which was designed for the fishermen to fill in to secure the assistance was so complicated that one required the help of a chartered accountant.
Since that time I think we have improved on the form. Although the form is long the great majority of fishermen are required to fill out only the first part of it, which related to fishermen who were engaged 1 only one type of fishing, for salt cod. This has been welcomed down there not just as a subsidy but as the way of trying to level off the costs of salt. We spent a little more than half a million dollars last year in this type of assistance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
637.	To recoup the lobster trap indemnity account, established under vote 540 of the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1955, to cover the net losses incurred in the operation of the account during the fiscal years 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56, $57,680.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, am I right in assuming from the wording that this is a detailed account which is necessary to recoup losses for the three years?


James Sinclair: Yes, that is right.


George Clyde Nowlan: There is no vote provided for that, is that it?


James Sinclair: No. We had a loan account but we have not drawn on it. It is obvious now that with our present premiums and the present group we cover in lobster trap insurance, we are going to have an annual
Supply-Post Office
deficit. When we started this insurance for vessels and lobster traps we were told by the insurance people, I must confess, that it would be difficult to bring in an actuarially sound system for gear. We tried it and worked out what we thought were good average rates. We had a loss in danger areas where we have a much higher chance of loss than average, but despite the loss it is less than we have paid in recent years in loans to fishermen losing their traps through hurricanes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
324. Departmental administration, $1,596,132.
William McLean Hamilton: Does the minister propose to make a statement at this point, Mr. Chairman?


Mr. Lapointe:: No, Mr. Chairman, I did not propose to make a statement. The estimates of the department were rather thoroughly scrutinized and studied by the estimates committee. I did make a statement before that committee, and I did not intend making one at this stage.


William McLean Hamilton: Supply-Post Office
either non-delivery or slow delivery of mail. Having said that I must in fairness to the department point out that this figure has remained reasonably stationary over the past several years, and is an indication that the department is not losing ground in this respect and indeed may be gaining some ground, because their volume has increased.
Looking at the post office from the over-all point of view, one matter that disturbs some of us is their failure to compare their operation with the operations of other countries which have similar problems relating to postal service. On a number of occasions we asked the question as to how this situation compared statistically or actually with the experience in the United States, and without exception I believe we were told that the department had not obtained comparative figures and did not think they had any validity.
I would suggest to the department and to the committee that as so many of our problems in Canada and the United States are similar, and because a great deal of work has been done in Canada in collecting statistics in connection with postal operations, it would be a good thing if certain of those statistics were compared with the experience not only in the United States but in other countries, so we could measure the efficiency of our department as against that of other departments.
It is evident to many of us that this policy of having a sizeable profit each year for the Post Office Department, according to their own system of accounting, means that a profit is being made on services rendered the Canadian taxpayer. I do not think many people, certainly not myself, would recommend the operation of the post office at a loss, bookkeeping or otherwise, but we find that in three of the last four years there has been shown a profit of $6 million a year or over and a deficit in only one year of some $2,500,000. That would seem to indicate that we are burdening the taxpayer with postal charges which are in excess of what it is necessary to charge.
I make this point not only with respect to the future but I would harken back also to 1954, when we on this side staged quite a battle against increases in the postal rates. The statistics show that had the old rates been continued we would have been operating at something of a loss; but in 1955, the first full year we can examine, the new rates produced a surplus, as shown in the Postmaster General's annual report, of $7,700,000. I suggest that certain rates, whether for local, out of town or other classifications of mail, were probably raised disproportionately high.

There does seem to be a continuing desire among people to whom I have spoken that consideration be given to returning to the two a day mail service in at least the major centres of this country. That can be coupled with the desire of many smaller localities where there is no house delivery at the present time that they be furnished some measure of house delivery, even though not on a two a day basis but certainly a minimum service of once a day. In the committee we examined a proposition to introduce a two a day mail service on a five-day basis in all centres where deliveries are now provided and the department produced a statistical analysis showing that this would increase their costs by approximately $3 million at the present time, leading to an eventual increase of in the neighbourhood of $3,700,000, if my memory serves me right.
As was pointed out in the committee, that does not necessarily take into account all the factors. There is a suggestion that with a five-day week a man would remain on the same route throughout the year, and the efficiency of this department might be noticeably increased. In any event it is possible to say that the establishment of a two a day delivery service on a five-day week basis across the country would still leave the department with a substantial profit, and it is quite conceivable that something could be applied to the extension and betterment of delivery services in centres where none are now provided.
I must express my regret that the minister has not provided an opportunity for the committee to inspect the new electronic sorting equipment we inquired about at the time the departmental estimates were being considered. At that time this equipment had cost something over $700,000 to develop and research, but it was temporarily out of operation. They were awaiting a few parts from a manufacturer, at which point it would go back into operation again. The minister will perhaps remember that an undertaking was given at that time that as soon as it was in operation the committee would be invited to have a look at it.
That was almost three months ago, and what worries me is whether we have paid out an amount which is rapidly approaching $1 million for a machine which has not been brought to the point of operation during a period of three months so those of us who are interested could see it. I wonder if when this machine goes into operation and a few parts are again needed, it will be laid up for another period of three months.
I certainly support the idea of modernizing as many functions of the post office as can be

successfully undertaken without unfair effects upon the staff, but I am wondering whether this immense sum, which is increasing all the time, is going to result in a machine which will operate successfully. It might be pointed out that the time at which it was to go into operation has been delayed and delayed, and it would be interesting to know whether the minister still expects to make the target date, which I believe is the end of this year.
There is another matter which is perhaps peculiar to one area in this country and to which I express strong objection. The department has a policy

perhaps it is not fair to call it a policy-or a practice in Quebec of encouraging people to obtain letters of reference from their members of parliament when they wish to obtain temporary employment with the post office. Shortly after my election, which was in August, I began to get phone calls from people who wanted letters of introduction in order to get jobs with the post office. In my innocence I said, "Oh, you do not need them. Just go down and tell them you want to work, and if they have a job for you they will take you on." However, I received so many of these calls all in the same tenor that it became quite obvious that it was a practice in the main post office in Montreal to expect a person coming in to have a letter of recommendation from his member.
I am not complaining, Mr. Chairman, that this is patronage in the sense that there is discrimination as between one member and another. Some of the people to whom I gave letters of recommendation got jobs with the department. Of course there were not quite as many as in the case of some of the more fortunate members. I find it difficult to identify the riding of the top recommender, but one member recommended some 428 people who obtained employment. The figures range from there down to the hon. member for Mount Royal, who had 14, and myself with 12, if my memory serves me correctly, with intermediate numbers of 200, 275, 305. To sum up the situation, out of 6,947 people who obtained temporary employment with the post office last Christmas in Montreal 4,465, or approximately two-thirds, supported their applications with letters from members of parliament.
This is not the way to have the best possible government service. The best possible government service arises from allowing the departments freedom to choose their people without being influenced and without forcing applicants into obtaining recommendations from their members. When we pointed this [DOT]out to the minister in the committee he said
Supply-Post Office
this was not their policy. I would hardly expect that it is, but I do suggest to the minister that in at least this one area of Canada it is the established practice, and I say that it should be curbed in the interests of good service on the part of the post office and so they may be left free to obtain the best possible type of employee.
Turning to the question of the people who work in the post office, their hopes for the future, their morale and things of that kind,
1	feel that there are inequities as between various centres across Canada, and that the department has not taken steps quickly enough to put all their people on the same level. In the case of a department which has 50,000 employees it is impossible for any member of parliament to make an adequate analysis that will cover the entire field. One has to, as the technical term is, sample a situation; and if the conclusions are satisfactory and it is apparent that the department is doing a satisfactory job, one goes no further. If the conclusions are unsatisfactory one draws it to the attention of the Postmaster General and the house in the hope that something will be done.
In one examination I was able to make of the status of post office employees 1 found that the situation could hardly be called satisfactory. I refer to the grades held by the clerks in charge of post offices, whom we might better call postmasters because I think the term is known to us all. In order to arrive at this study I took two of Canada's major cities-I was going to say Canada's two major cities, but perhaps I should not-Montreal and Toronto. For each one of the post offices in each of these cities I inquired as to the grade of the clerk in charge, the revenue of the post office and the number of employees. One would expect that the situation would be somewhat similar in these two cities. Incidentally, I may say for the benefit of those who are not familiar with the matter that the grades go upward. In other words, grade 2 is lower than grade 3 both as to salary and status.
In Montreal we find that out of 28 postmasters 24 are grade 2. In Toronto we find that out of 17 postmasters only two are grade
2	and 14 are grade 3. That indicates rather conclusively that, for whatever reason, the great bulk of the postmasters in Montreal are grade 2 and the great bulk in Toronto are grade 3.
We find that there is no relationship between the revenue of the office and the grade of the postmaster. To take a couple of cases at random, there is one post office in Montreal with a revenue of between $500,000 and $1 million. The postmaster is a grade 2. The

Supply-Post Office
postmaster in that same class in Toronto is a grade 3. There is one situation of that kind.
In another case in Montreal there are nine post offices with a revenue of from $200,000 to $300,000 and each one has a grade 2 postmaster. In the same monetary revenue class in Toronto three of the four post offices have grade 3 postmasters. In other words there is a great discrepancy, which I would assume exists right across the country. It does seem to me that the department, which claims to be taking steps to correct that situation, is at fault in not having corrected the situation long before now.
It may be that the Postmaster General will say that the grade of the postmaster has a relationship to the number of employees, but I would point out to the house that in those post offices in Montreal with over 30 employees 75 per cent have grade 2 postmasters, and 92 per cent of similar post offices in Toronto have grade 3 postmasters. The net result leads one to the assumption that the grading of post office employees at the present time is not in line with their responsibilities, and is not on a similar basis from one city to another. I certainly feel very strongly that this is unfair and demonstrates a lack of proper organization in the department.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I had selected one example-among quite a few which might have been brought forward-of differences in remuneration for what is substantially the same job in so far as the Post Office Department is concerned. Having given the details, I would merely say again that it is that type of situation which makes people unhappy and which causes distress within an organization.
No company organization and no government organization can operate successfully for very long if their employees do not have a high level of morale. When one reads the publication of the post office employees themselves and when one hears from time to time through the press of certain happenings across the country, one is led to wonder whether actually the morale among the staff of the post office in its entirety is as high as it should be. I rather doubt that it is. For that condition I lay the responsibility

at the door of the government because of situations such as the one I outlined to you a few moments ago.
I turn now for a few moments to the question of robberies from the post office and security within the post office generally. We have a situation which has worsened steadily over the last three years. I am prepared to say that the department had made its attempts-and I think they were attempts that were quite sincere and at times quite extensive-to deal with this situation, but to date the results that we expected have certainly not been forthcoming.
I am inclined to think-and I mentioned this before the committee-that the efforts which have been made have stemmed directly from the study made in this house a couple of years ago of the security or lack of security within the post office and of the facts which were then produced. Certainly the department since then has greatly improved its record-keeping system in respect of thefts and burglaries, and it seems to have taken some steps in other directions.
Despite that fact, we find that the incidence of break-ins with respect to the post office has increased steadily year by year. In the calendar year 1953 they were 101; in 1954 they were 171, and in 1955 they were 235. The losses-and these are for the fiscal year-in the post office in the year ended in 1954 were approximately $32,000; in the year ended in 1955 approximately $58,000, and in the year ended, in 1956 they were approximately $99,000. That is a substantial increase.
Earlier I had made reference to a comparison between our experience and that in the United States. We find that in the United States post office break-ins increased from 1953 to 1954-these are my latest figures-from 1,087 to 1,280 or by 21 per cent, while in Canada they increased from 101 to 171 or by some 70 per cent.
When we were discussing this matter in committee the minister did not like the comparison between Canada and the United States. As reported at page 682 of the proceedings of the committee on estimates he said:
What you should compare is the incidence of postal burglaries as compared to the incidence of crime and other burglaries and so on throughout this country.
And later:
If the incidence of other crime throughout the country is going down, then you would certainly be right in saying that we are the victim of more crimes than the other operations in the country. That is not the case as I understand it.
Subsequently his advisers indicated that they had no satisfactory figures by means of

which to compare their own experience with that of the situation in Canada generally. I think it is interesting that just in the last few days there has become available a government publication entitled "Statistics of Criminal and Other Offences". This shows that convictions for burglary, housebreaking and shopbreaking were 6,634 in 1953 and 7,568 in 1954. That is an increase of 14 per cent in 1954 over 1953, which is the last period for which figures are available. We know that in that same calendar year with regard to the post office the increase was approximately 70 per cent in offences. Admittedly I am comparing convictions in the one case with offences in the other. In most of these cases, however, one knows that the rate of offence and the rate of conviction remains about in ratio.
I suggest that this is a disturbing set of statistics to bring before the house. When the minister was before the committee he promised us that he would investigate the possibility of centralizing all investigation of post office thefts and burglaries under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and that he would report to the house at this time on this matter. I hope he has made a serious study of this matter and that he can comment on it at this time.
There seems to be some indication-the department were loathe to give us details, and I must say that I understand their position-that burglar alarms are being installed in certain places across the country. That is certainly a step forward. From any evidence that I have been able to find, however, they are not being installed rapidly enough or extensively enough to deal with this situation. It would seem that the major post offices in the major cities of Canada should all be protected with a burglar alarm or some similar type of protection. After all, a net loss of $100,000 in a year is quite sufficient to pay for a good many burglar alarms. In addition, the installation of these alarms would, in many cases, ward off potential robbers not only from the post offices in which they were installed but from others as well, because people would not know where they had been installed.
There is one further point I think should be made in connection with the post office, and when I have dealt with it I shall resume my seat for the time being. I refer to their insistence upon operating a banking system in competition with the private banks of this country. In the Woods and Gordon report which analysed their operation there was a definite recommendation that this banking system be discontinued. The post office flatly refused to consider the suggestion.
Supply-Post Office
For my part I can see some justification for the department's stand that their post office banks may be needed in a limited number of small communities across the country which do not have regular banking service. But as was pointed out in the committee hearings, this same banking service in the post offices is being carried into every major city in Canada, and in many cases you have a post office bank on one corner and a commercial bank on the other. Very substantial savings to the taxpayers of Canada could be made if the operation of the post office saving bank were restricted to those very few areas where it could serve a useful purpose, and were eliminated in all those areas where it is in complete competition with the private banking system.
One word should be said, Mr. Chairman, by way of tribute to those who work in the post office, the 50,000 men and women across this country who serve that organization. We have and doubtless shall continue to have areas of strong disagreement on matters of policy. We shall no doubt disagree with the government on certain aspects of the post office operation. We shall have reservations about some of the things they may do. But from having met many of these people in various parts of Canada, I feel that under somewhat difficult and trying circumstances at times they are doing their best, that they have dedicated themselves to a life of service to the public of Canada and to making our post office as effective an operation as they can make it within the sometimes hampering restrictions imposed by government policy.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have always believed, Mr. Chairman, in the words of that old hymn, "Count your blessings one by one". When I am counting them I always include the Post Office Department and the parliamentary assistant. My nearest neighbour for 45 years is a relative of the parliamentary assistant. He lives about nine miles from me. He is the brother of the late Lindsay Gardner who was speaker of the legislature of Nova Scotia for many years. I like to listen to him talk about the parliamentary assistant, because that is what gave me the idea of counting my blessings. He has told me and my neighbours, all the people in my district from one end to the other, that the parliamentary assistant to the minister is the greatest blessing Nova Scotia has sent to Ottawa in a century.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I come back and say that any organization or department, no matter how efficient, is bound to make mistakes and is not, on that account, free of criticism. I make it a point when I am in my constituency to talk to the post-

Supply-Post Office
masters, to the rural mail carriers, to the postmen in the cities and to anyone connected with the government service. I do not do this with the idea of looking for trouble, but to try to get the viewpoint of the employees and to learn more about the operation of the department and possibly some of those things that could be improved within the department itself.
In that connection I want to deal with a few things that were brought to my attention by the employees of the postal department in my constituency. I saw quite a number of them. First of all I found in some quarters complaints about the rules on appeals for promotional examination. The complaint was based on the ground that seniority, length of service, experience and qualifications do not, I understand, constitute grounds for appeal. I bring that to the attention of the minister because there was considerable dissatisfaction amongst a number of good employees.
Second, I found in some post offices that the local postmaster sits as chairman of the examining board for promotions in his own office. I found quite a number of employees, both those working in the post office and those carrying the mail, who complained against this. These employees complained that this makes personal preference and favouritism possible. They think the minister should be advised of this, and I believe there is some merit in it. They were complaining of the fact the local postmaster sits as chairman of the examining board that deals with promotions in the office itself.
The third complaint was one I heard on several occasions, that the observations and suggestions of post office inspectors, as well as other officials, are overruled or ignored by some postmasters with regard to the proper carrying on of staff meetings and the reorganization of mail routes, and sometimes with respect to internal arrangements. I just bring these matters to the attention of the minister because I promised these employees to do so. They are the type of employees who are not given to making frivolous complaints, so I would like him to have that situation investigated.
I want to deal for a moment or two with what I call the peculiar case of the Toronto Weekly Star which retails in Ontario for 10 cents a copy and in British Columbia for 15 cents a copy. There is a 1 cent provincial tax. The excuse given by the Toronto Weekly Star is that this cost to the purchaser there is brought about by postage rates when, as a matter of fact, I understand the postage rates to a point in Ontario and a point in British Columbia are the same, 4 cents per pound for this type of material.

There is no doubt about it, the Post Office Department loses very heavy revenue by reason of these very low rates on certain types of magazines, papers and things of that sort. I think the house agreed to this proposal in order to facilitate the distribution of papers, magazines and literature. I wonder if the Toronto Weekly Star publishers are doing their part in this respect when they charge their British Columbia subscribers 15 cents a copy when they can send it to British Columbia for exactly the same price as they can send it to a point in Ontario. I should like the minister to comment on that point.
I have been asked by quite a number of my constituents and people in southern British Columbia generally to deal with another topic. I want to make a few comments on the wildlife series of stamps. Let me say, first of all, that I am very glad to know there is a wildlife series of stamps, because I think it is an excellent theme for a stamp. I think we have been a bit unfortunate to date, if one judges from the examples I have seen. This matter has been raised in the house by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace and one or two others.
I would not base my opinion entirely upon the statements of members in this house, because they might possibly be tinged with a political flavour. I have based my opinion on the opinions of people in British Columbia who hold very important positions. I realize the difficulty of transferring a drawing accurately to an engraving, and the difficulties of engraving certain subjects. However, I want to suggest that even Borneo produces a series of wildlife stamps which are masterpieces compared with those produced in Canada. I have some of them in my possession.
I am not blaming the artists or anyone, but possibly we could investigate some of the processes the people use in other countries where they have been successful in engraving subjects that are quite difficult. I know that in some of the Asian countries they use wildlife studies on their stamps quite frequently, and they are really works of art. I suggest that there should be some inquiry made to see whether we cannot bring our Canadian stamps up to the standard of those engraved in Borneo.
I want to illustrate that we are not just complaining members of the house. Here is a letter that was written in Ottawa about the goat stamp. We have all heard about it. I was interested in it before because there are some wild goats in my constituency-fourlegged ones-and I know what they look like because I have been out hunting. The letter reads:
Those who dislike the "goat" stamp have only to reverse it to see displayed an elder statesman,

identity undetermined. He wears a neat, if old-fashioned, derby hat, has expressive eyes, and a handsome white beard, while his sky-blue coat is marked by shoulder tabs, and lapels that might well serve as a pattern for designers seeking something new in this sartorial feature. For a greatly improved effect, use this famous stamp upside down.
That is from a prominent citizen of Ottawa. Then I have a copy of a letter from a personal friend of mine, a contractor in British Columbia, who writes me as follows:
Dear Bert:
In our local paper the Daily Colonist I read about your remarks regarding the new issue of stamps. Allow me to congratulate you. I as well as many I have spoken to here in Victoria all agree they should be withdrawn. The mountain goat looks as though it might pass out at any time. It is no more like a mountain goat than a very sleepy sheep with upright horns.
As for the caribou, it looks like something one might have after a good drunk. Talk about seeing double! In any case there appears to be seven caribou with horns and one with only one horn.
I do hope that you and the other members of the house may prevail upon the powers that be to cancel this proposed issue.
Then one other letter from the manager of one of the largest companies in British Columbia:
Dear Mr. Herridge:
I have noted with interest your comments in respect to the "wildlife" postage stamps which are coming out in the new issue.
I do not know as to whether there was any comment made in respect to one of the stamps in a previous issue-I forget what they may have commemorated but it is supposed to be, as I remember it, a mountain sheep. I am enclosing a couple of the stamps to which I refer. To my mind, this is a very poor reproduction of a mountain sheep and to me it looks more like a cross between a cow and a supreme court judge with a wig. I realize there is no point in my bringing this question up, but I was prompted to do so by the remarks which have been made in respect to the new issue.
Then a paper published in Australia that specializes in stamps and contains plenty of information about stamps of all kinds-[DOT] it is published for stamp collectors and is called Stamp News-has a leading article on page 3 entitled "Drunkard's Nightmare", with the subheading "Politician's View of Canadian Stamp", which reads as follows: By Dace Logigas
Who gives a blow to blow description of the bitter controversy which has raged around the issue of a series of wildlife stamps in Canada.
I quote briefly from it, but before doing so may I say I am sure this is much more serious than just a jocular affair in the House of Commons. Many people are concerned about this issue of stamps because they want the stamps to be worthy of the engraving art in Canada. The article reads in part:
Life these days must be a pretty grim affair for certain Canadian citizens.
Supply-Post Office
That is the minister. I continue:
They are the small but important batch of officials responsible for the issue of Canada's postage stamps. Once a happy band of individuals, praised and feted universally, they have since 1951 been a haunted, fear-ridden race, hunted looks appearing on their faces whenever the subject of stamps is mentioned.
They are in trouble again over the 1956 wildlife series and public abuse is being heaped on their unlucky heads.
But the volume of hard words directed at them in recent years has blunted their susceptibilities to such an extent that they are now said openly to wince only at the most devastating remarks of their unkind critics.
Up to 1951 all was rosy in the Canadian philatelic garden. Canada had a good record of stamp issues amongst empire countries, being among the first of the commonwealth nations to issue attractive pictorial commemoratives. Some of these it is true, were no works of art, but they did not merit any severe criticism either; and the design that occasionally fell below expectations was more than compensated by some of the really superb issues of pre-war Canada, issues such as the 1933 5-cent U.P.U. congress, 5-cent 1933 Royal William, 3-cent 1934 Cartier, 13-cent 1935 Jubilee to name but a few.
Then it goes on to deal quite critically with the musk ox stamp, the wild sheep stamp and the wild goat stamp. I mention these things to indicate even an international interest in the production of stamps in Canada. I believe our department should seek advice from some other countries so the procedures would be improved and we would be able to have stamps issued equal to those in the countries I have mentioned.
I have another little matter here, Mr. Chairman. I was very glad to note recently that the Post Office Department has a humour section, as an indication that the majority of the staff have not lost their sense of humour. I want to deal now with the cause of that humour. It is "Postmen and Pooches". A dog may be man's best friend, but it would be difficult to get the postman to agree with that sentiment, particularly a good number in my constituency who have been bitten. Post office reports indicate that 183 letter carriers have claimed compensation so far this year for bites severe enough to require medical attention. No doubt thousands of other unfortunate postmen patched themselves up without professional aid.
As far as my constituency is concerned, at the present time there are 10 cases of postmen having been bitten, but fortunately none of them seriously. However, I understand that the department has given some consideration to this, and it is an important question because it is a very serious thing for postmen delivering mail on a good many routes, and it is a concern in countries other than Canada. The department tried to rise to the occasion, Mr. Chairman, by issuing a directive to the postmen in Trail, of which I was

Supply-Post Office
given a copy. It was informing the postmen how to win friends and influence canines. This is the directive:
1.	Ignore the dog until he shows he is friendly. Never make the first advance.
2.	Don't strike at the snarling, snapping or barking dog, or he'll conclude it's all right to fight back.
3.	A vicious dog can be bluffed-just walk fast and straight past him-never turn your back and run-show unconcern.
You know, this is a directive from the Post Office Department to the postmen. There are no rules of conduct, for instance, where the vicious dog calls the postman's bluff. I mention this as an indication of the growing sense of humour within the department, and I am pleased to see it because without a sense of humour this would be a pretty unfortunate world.
However, I do suggest there are more effective ways to deal with this question. I might tell the minister frankly that the postmen did not find this directive very helpful, but the matter has been given consideration in the United States. They had a committee studying it recently. While they could not come to conclusions, after a long time and after some experiments carried out somewhat recently, they have found a fairly effective way of dealing with the dog who wants to bite the postman. What they do is give the postman a little satchel of tidbits for the dog. I do not know what it is, but it is very effective. The postman just throws one at the dog and the dog takes it and the postman drops the letter in the box and goes on scot free. I understand since they have been using those tidbits they have reduced dog bites of postmen by 90 per cent. I suggest the department should investigate this, because it may be a very cheap and effective way of dealing with this menace to postmen across this country.
My second suggestion would be that after trying this, where people insist on keeping a dog that is savage and dangerous to other people the department consider whether they would be justified in saying that no more mail would be delivered at such a house or place of business until the dog was removed.
I have got a good laugh out of the Post Office Department directly and I have enjoyed it, but it is a serious matter. I just bring the attention of the department to research and studies that have been made in the United States to see whether we could not do something along that line. I am quite sure the postmen would not mind carrying that little bag of whatnots, or whatever you like to call it, so long as it protected them from the dogs in question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I shall take just a brief moment or two at this stage of the proceedings of the house. I understand that when a community is ready to receive mail delivery as opposed to those in the community going and getting their mail in a box, the rule of thumb, roughly speaking, is that a community must have a population of approximately
8,000	and an annual revenue, so far as the post office is concerned, of approximately $50,000.
In my constituency there are two towns that have come very close to meeting all the qualifications required. One is the town of Ingersoll and the other is the town of Till-sonburg. The latest census figures, of course, are not available because the results of the more recent census have not yet been published, but in the 1951 census the town of Ingersoll had a population of 6,524 and the town of Tillsonburg had a population of 5,330. Both these towns, particularly Tillsonburg, are growing at a very considerable rate. However, as far as the postal revenues from these towns are concerned, in 1954 Ingersoll had a postal revenue of $46,660, and in 1953 it had a revenue of $48,606. Oddly enough, the revenue appeared to be slightly higher in 1953 than it was in 1954, but I find from looking at the figures that this seems to be generally the case for one reason or another.
Tillsonburg, while having a somewhat smaller population than Ingersoll in 1951, nevertheless in 1953 had a postal revenue of $51,893 and in 1954 had a postal revenue of $50,552. In other words, Mr. Chairman, while the town of Tillsonburg according to the 1951 census does not quite meet the population requirements, it does meet the revenue requirements laid down by the department; and the town of Ingersoll with a slightly larger population-I imagine it would be close to 8,000 today-comes very close to meeting both the population and the revenue requirements.
I very much hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Postmaster General, his deputy and the other officers of the department will take a very close look at both Tillsonburg and Ingersoll with a view to having mail delivery service established there in the very near future. As I have pointed out, Tillsonburg already more than meets the revenue requirements and Ingersoll is very close.
There is just one other item I would like to deal with, and it relates to what I consider a very unfortunate case in the city of Woodstock. I have brought this matter to the attention of the minister and his parliamentary assistant on a previous occasion, and the results have not been very satisfactory as far as I am concerned. I might say this is the only complaint I have

had against the Post Office Department since I have been here. I would like to bring this up now in the hope that this last appeal may soften the minister's heart a bit in relation to this case. I am told that in the province of Ontario there are six or seven elderly ladies in the same position as the one whose case I am going to bring before the committee at this time. These elderly ladies are not civil servants, unfortunately, but they have held positions in post offices throughout the province where they sold stamps on a commission basis.
The lady I am going to deal with is a Miss Katherine Rose, who held such a position in the post office in Woodstock. I understand there is also one in Brantford and others in certain other places. These ladies unfortunately do not come under the civil service; consequently when they are compelled to give up their positions they have no pensions or any other type of remuneration coming to them other than the old age pension.
Miss Katherine Rose sold stamps on a concession basis in the Woodstock post office for 33 years. Last fall Miss Rose, who is approximately 80 years of age and continued to sell stamps despite her age, was discharged from the post office. I understand there were adequate reasons for discharging Miss Rose because of her age and so on; however, the one rather unfortunate aspect was that after 33 years of service she was told on September 21 that she was going to be discharged on September 30, which I think is rather short notice and somewhat abrupt, in fact one might almost say a little cold blooded.
Miss Rose, however, was fired, and now of course she has no revenue except the old age pension; because Woodstock had a population of approximately 10,000 during the period in which Miss Rose was employed, although it is a little larger now, and in a city of that size there would not be vast sales of stamps and I understand vendors receive a 2 per cent commission.
Miss Rose, as I said, is approximately 80 years of age, and according to the law of averages she probably will not live a great deal longer. I understand there are certain other ladies in the same predicament in this province, and now that we are approaching virtually a welfare state in Canada I think it is a great pity that these six or seven elderly ladies, none of whom will live very long, in all probability, could not receive some recompense from the government for their services over these many years.
It is indeed unfortunate that they are not under the civil service, but they are not; and I think it would be a very simple matter for the minister to include in his estimates or 67509-4781
Supply-Post Office
his supplementary estimates a little item reading, "Pension for so and so". We see it all through the estimates; we saw it this afternoon when we were dealing with the estimates of the Department of Justice. There is a small pension item for three ladies in those estimates and I presume it covers some unusual circumstances such as these. I am sure it will not bankrupt the country nor will it endanger the enormous surpluses of the Minister of Finance if the government should find it possible to give $600 a year to each of these six or seven ladies who served the Post Office Department. Such arrangements have been made in other departments, and I do not see why it could not be done here.
In addition to that, in our town we had another elderly lady who worked for 60 years not in the post office but as a stenographer for the province of Ontario. Because of the length of time she worked and the nature of her employment she did not receive a pension when she was obliged to retire. However, the government of the province of Ontario saw fit to give this elderly lady, who had worked for 60 years in the service of the province, a special pension under the estimates, and I cannot see why the Postmaster General could not find a way of doing it in relation to the handful of elderly ladies I have mentioned.
I know the minister may very well say, "Oh, but Miss Rose worked until she was 80 years old, and for that reason she had an income and was better off than if she had retired on a pension." Mr. Chairman, that is no answer at all. It certainly is news to me that when people are obliged to work until they are 80 years of age in order to live it is to be preferred to a pension. This lady should have retired at the age of 65 or 70 like anyone else, instead of having to work until she was 80 and able to work no more. I cannot understand why the minister is unable to find some way of softening his heart a little to help out these few elderly ladies who are scattered throughout the province of Ontario.


Mr. McBain:: Mr. Chairman, I have been asked by the rural mail carriers of my own riding of Elgin to bring to the attention of the minister a petition they circulated widely among their group, which is signed by some 39 of the 50 rural carriers in the county. I have already sent a copy of the petition to the minister. It reads as follows:
We. the undersigned mail carriers of Elgin county, in view of the high cost of owning and maintaining a suitable vehicle for the purpose of delivering mail to the rural sections, feel that a minimum remuneration of $75 per contract mile per year is necessary to meet that high cost and leave a satisfactory amount for our labours.

Supply-Post Office
Therefore, we respectfully request that you bring the matter to the attention of the proper authorities and ask that our remuneration for services tendered be brought up to that minimum.
Mr. Chairman, I believe our rural carriers all across Canada perform a wonderful service in delivering the mail. They are perhaps somewhat like showmen in that the old proverb, "the show must go on" has an application for them. Come hell or high water, rain, sleet or snow, rural mail carriers feel the mail must be delivered and they see that this is done. I recall that one winter we had a severe storm which lasted for a number of weeks, and it was extremely difficult to deliver mail. I know of one particular case where for seven days in succession a carrier delivered his mail over a 24-mile route on foot through extremely deep snow.
I feel that some consideration should be given to these people. If they were in the civil service they would have already received a raise in pay. Perhaps the minister will say these people deliver mail under contract, and if they are not satisfied with the contract price all they have to do is give it up and tender on it again. That does not seem quite fair, as many of these contractors have held their contracts for long periods and they hesitate to give them up. Therefore they carry on and sometimes work actually at a loss.
There are a few suggestions I should like to pass along to the minister at this time which were passed along to me by a rural mail carrier. The first is that there should be some standardization of routes; they should be made longer. The present length of routes is based on horse and buggy days. Then it is suggested that the rural mail delivery be made a profession or occupation, not a side line. It is suggested that rates of pay be established with a certain amount of elasticity to provide for the different conditions in different districts. Contractors over 65 years of age who have had a lengthy term of service should be given a pension in keeping with their present contract prices.
I should like to endorse what the hon. member for Oxford has said about people in the post office with lengthy periods of service being entitled to pensions. When there is an amalgamation of routes the courier with seniority should be permitted to carry the new route. A pension plan should be established for the remainder, and there should be holidays with pay, sick benefits, group insurance and so forth.
Under the present system no route will sustain itself and provide the class of equipment which the public expects the courier to drive, notwithstanding the courier's own
[Mr. McBain.l
pride. This makes it necessary for him to go out and work all hours at all kinds of work, or else have some other member of the family drive the route while the contractor seeks more remunerative employment. I ask the minister and the department to give serious consideration to these suggestions. I think it is only fair to the rural mail carriers and contract mail carriers in Canada that they should be given the same consideration as the civil service recently received.


Gage Workman Montgomery: There are two matters I wish to deal with, one of which can be brought up under this item and the other one I shall bring up later. I just received a letter asking why the post office at Debec in Victoria county has been moved from the main street to another business section.


Hugues Lapointe: I shall endeavour to get the information before these estimates are completed.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In March of this year I put a number of questions on the order paper to which I received answers. The reason I asked those questions was the reduction in urban mail deliveries from two to one a day. Mail from the east and west hits Toronto at seven or eight o'clock in the morning, but any mail destined for Hamilton does not reach that city until after the first mail delivery has gone out. The result is that a great deal of business mail is 24 hours late, because many business firms are still on the one a day delivery. With that in mind I inquired of some of these companies as to what procedure they followed in getting their mail and I found that a number of companies have been unable to rent post office boxes at the general post office, and therefore have adopted the procedure of having the post office staff collect their mail which they pick up at the letter carrier wicket. I do not mean the general delivery wicket; as the minister knows, the letter carrier wicket is located in another part of the post office.
I have been informed that at the main post office in Montreal there are 774 post office boxes, 473 of which are rented, leaving a balance of 301 unrented. There are 2,022 companies or individuals who pick up their mail daily or perhaps several times a day at the letter carrier wicket. In Toronto there are 352 post office boxes at the main office; 350 are rented with 2 unrented; there are 1,925 companies or individuals who pick up their mail at the letter carrier wicket. In Hamilton there are 378 post office boxes in the main office, 376 of which are rented with 2 empty, and 132 companies or individuals pick up their mail at the letter carrier wicket.

In Kitchener there are 276 post office boxes, 276 being rented with none empty, and 26 companies or individuals pick up their mail at the letter carrier wicket. In St. Catharines there are 313 post office boxes, 308 of which are rented with 5 empty, and 26 companies or individuals pick up their mail at the letter carrier wicket. In Winnipeg there are 617 post office boxes, 609 of which are rented with 8 empty, and 588 companies or individuals have made arrangements to call for their mail at the letter carrier wicket. Once more I draw attention to the fact that this is not general delivery; this is a special service given to persons or companies who cannot get the service they require in the way of postal delivery.
In Regina there are 483 post office boxes, 470 of which are rented with 13 unrented, and 112 companies or individuals pick up their mail at the letter carrier wicket. In Calgary there are 400 post office boxes all of which are rented, and 354 companies or individuals pick up their mail at the letter carrier wicket. In Edmonton there are 462 post office boxes in the main post office, 461 of which are rented with 1 empty, and 221 persons or companies pick up their mail at the letter carrier wicket. In Vancouver there are 897 boxes of which 843 are rented, leaving 54 empty; 589 companies or individuals pick up their mail at the letter carrier wicket.
In some of the cities I have mentioned there are branch post offices where there are empty post office boxes, but most of these companies are within range of the downtown post office where the mail is directed first. That is where they collect the mail. It seems to me, particularly in view of the fact that the department has taken such a step to reduce mail deliveries, that some consideration should be given to these literally thousands of companies and individuals who find that in order to collect their mail and carry on business in a normal way, they are obliged not only to pick up the mail themselves at the main post office but to put the post office staff to considerable inconvenience to collect this mail and have it ready for them if and when they call to pick it up.


Harry Oliver White: I was quite interested in what the member for Kootenay West had to say with regard to the various issues of postage stamps, and I shall have a little more to say about that later. On several occasions I have pointed out to the department that in this day and age, when the horse and buggy has gone and the automobile is used for the delivery of rural mail, more attention should be given to the extension of rural routes, and regulations should not be so drastic as to curtail the delivery of mail to people in the rural areas.
Supply

Post Office
There is another item that I think is rather confusing to a great number of people. Some time ago it was broadcast across the country that all first-class mail would be airborne. Such is not the case. Mail posted in many areas does not have a chance in the world of being carried by air. So it is rather misleading to many Canadian citizens who think their first-class mail is airborne. I am going to ask the minister to indicate to the house what percentage of first-class mail is actually carried by air.
The hon. member for Elgin mentioned the rural mail carrier. Probably in this day and age, when hours of work and rates of pay are very seriously considered by many industries, I think the rural mail carrier, whilst his job is let on a contract basis, is the forgotten man in the postal department.
Coming back to what the hon. member for Kootenay West had to say regarding issues of postage stamps, particularly the wildlife issues, I take some little interest in the various issues of stamps. I would suggest, among other things, that each of the provinces of Canada has a flower that is known as its provincial flower.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We have the dogwood.


Harry Oliver White: I was just going to point out that the province of British Columbia has the dogwood; Alberta, the wild rose; Manitoba, the wild crocus; Saskatchewan, the red prairie lily; Ontario, the trillium; Quebec, the wild blue flag or iris; New Brunswick, the violet; Prince Edward Island, the lady's slipper; Nova Scotia, the arbutus; Newfoundland, the pitcher plant or Indian slipper. I might mention that the pitcher plant was selected for Newfoundland by the late Queen Victoria. This information is obtainable from the Canadian Geographical Journal.
The Falkland islands, as we all know very well, are very dependent upon the sea and they have a stamp issue that shows the various famous sailing vessels that called at the ports in those islands. The Falkland islands have been able to incorporate a very fine picture of our Queen in their stamps. So I suggest that when the department is considering a new issue of stamps it considers the provincial flowers that I have mentioned and, along with them, a fine portrait of the Queen. Just to show the minister what I have in mind, I am going to send over to him some samples I have here. I hope he will view them with interest.


Mr. Small:: First of all I should like to make the same remarks I made about the estimates of the transport department last week, that the figures we are discussing here

Supply-Post Office
are over a year old. We do not get the true picture of how the department is operating this year. The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace dealt with an analysis of the figures, and I do not need to say any more about that except that there was an increase in revenue this year of $21 million. He suggested that if the double delivery postal service were restored it would probably make it come out right.
I should like to repeat what I said some two years ago, that I am much more enamoured of the technique adopted by the Postmaster General who made this a hobby, Sir William Mulock, who always provided service and increased efficiency. As the surplus mounted and mounted, he gave it back to the people who were paying for the service. In this particular case the department is working in reverse. They are anticipating there is going to be a loss, and they make the people pay for that loss. It just proves to me that the technique employed by Sir William Mulock was the right one, particularly when they follow the recommendation of the Woods-Gordon report and find that they begin to get results. This is only the first year that we are able to say they have had the benefit of the Woods-Gordon report. We shall probably have to wait till next year to get the full picture of how it is operating. I shall leave it at that for now.
The matter brought up by the hon. member for Kootenay West is an intriguing one. In regard to the postage stamps, I thought it was satire they were trying to achieve. Two years ago, I believe, I mentioned that they had brought out a new series of stamps, and they had a goose that was very effectively done. I am not criticizing the art work of the stamps, because it is very difficult to get good artistic results for a very small stamp. The original art work has to be about ten or 20 times the size of the stamp, and it is difficult to reduce it perfectly. As far as the subject matter is concerned I did not think it was humorous; I thought it was satire. When they brought in the higher postage rates I thought they were using the symbol of the goose that laid the golden eggs, because the public was the goose. It was getting the revenue from the public, who were not getting anything in return for it.
Last year they introduced another wildlife subject. I suggested that I thought it would be a very good idea if, instead of a walrus, they had taken a fish-a good slimy, slippery fish, a sucker-and probably that would be symbolic of what they were using the people

of Canada for. I should say there were a lot of suckers, because the rates were put up instead of being reduced and the surplus bounced.
This year I presumed they took my words to heart and decided to carry this lesson of symbolism to the people. Instead of giving them a fish they gave them a goat. It did not matter whether the art work was good. They got the story over, that they were using the people of Canada as the goat because they were still mulcting them for the higher rates of postage which they should not be charging.
Earlier in the year the hon. member for Peterborough brought up a matter with respect to that city, where they were quite concerned about this all-seeing eye or viewing gallery, as they call it, in the post office. Again another satirical thought occurred to me. When the Minister of Justice was discussing some of the criminal offences that were mentioned at that particular time he went down through the categories of offences of people who were becoming a nuisance, who had jail terms, who were in and out of prison and who were known to be repeaters or habitual offenders. He classified them as peeping toms if they were habitually going around schools or public places.
I suppose you would call a post office a public place. It is in the discretion of the postmaster of a particular post office whether he is going to turn on this all-seeing eye, this viewing gallery or peeping tom as I suggest you could call it now, because that is what it will be. There is going to be a problem here for the Minister of Justice in addition to the postmaster who is in charge of the post office when he turns on this all-seeing eye or peeping tom or viewing gallery, as he calls it, namely whether this could be taken to be any offence.
This gentleman is going to be a peeping Tom, and a charge could be laid against him. The first thing we know the Postmaster General may be implicated in the deal, inasmuch as he has authorized it. He is going to commit a very serious offence every time he turns this all-seeing eye or peeping tom on people who are working in the post office, particularly if there are any nice looking ladies in there and they happen to be in a compromising posture. To have this peeping tom in operation may make him liable to a fine of $500 or maybe a term in jail.
They are going to have a problem that will be very difficult to solve. I hope they are going to get the Minister of Justice and his officials to get them out of the difficulty.


Hayden Stanton: I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for Elgin with regard

to the rural mail carrier. No people in Canada work more diligently and faithfully than do those people. Some time ago the postal rates were raised. I feel that these mail carriers are not getting their just benefits from that raise in rates.
At this time I have another matter which I wish to mention. We have a small problem in the post office at Seeleys Bay as to which perhaps the Postmaster General can give me the answer. During past years, in fact for as long as I can remember, the post office boxes at Seeleys Bay have been covered with glass through which post office box holders could look into the box and see whether there was any mail in it. But now that glass has been crystalized and we cannot see through it. Much inconvenience is caused to the box holders and also to the postmaster, because every time anybody goes into the post office and cannot see whether or not he has any mail in his box, the postmaster must run around and look into it.
I was just wondering whether this was a direction that came from the administrative branch of the Postmaster General or whether it was a direction that came from the divisional superintendent. Inconvenience is caused not only to the boxholders but also to the postmaster. I was wondering whether the Postmaster General could inform me whether this direction had come from the administrative branch, or whether it was from the superintendent of that particular district.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might be permitted at this stage to make a few remarks in answer to some of the questions that have been asked. Then possibly we could carry this first item and any specific questions could be raised on the other items in the estimates.
As is usually the case when post office estimates come before members of this house, the questions and comments cover a wide range. It is significant that this is so, because I believe every hon. member is more familiar with the everyday operations of the post office department than with those of many other departments. For that reason I welcome all the comments, suggestions and criticisms that are offered.
I do not know just how I could deal at one time with everything that has been mentioned. To start with, much has been said about the stamps of the department. The hon. member for Kootenay West, the hon. member for Middlesex East and others have referred to the various stamps issued by the department. It has been suggested by the hon. member for Middlesex East that we should possibly consider issuing stamps representing floral designs of a provincial
Supply-Post Office
character. This matter is at present under study and some designs are being looked into.
I suppose the comments which attracted most attention were those made by the hon. member for Kootenay West, when he repeated the views expressed by many others as to some of the designs in our wildlife series. In the estimates committee, as I think hon. members who sat in the committee will agree, this whole question was fairly well discussed. It was explained by the director of that particular branch of the department that we had a very intricate process of choosing designs, having them approved, referring them to artists and the national gallery and so on. But as he pointed out to the hon. member, I believe, the unfortunate fact is that goats are not good-looking animals. If we are going to represent the wildlife of Canada, we have to represent the animals as they exist. This particular design was submitted to zoologists who said it was a good goat and looked exactly like a mountain goat, and that, unattractive as it was, it was a good representation of that particular animal.
The hon. member tells me that in Borneo they have stamps representing their wildlife. I do not know whether or not the wildlife in Borneo is more attractive than that of Canada. I would hate to slander the Canadian mountain goat, but there you have the situation. As far as that is concerned, any stamp that is issued by the department and which may have a technical aspect or character is always referred to experts on that particular subject.
Of course other comments were made by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I must say that I was extremely pleased that he raised this complex question of the relationship between the letter carrier and the neighbourhood dog. As he pointed out, this is a subject which has attracted quite a bit of attention in the press lately. It is true that in the United States the matter was made the subject of a very serious study. I understand that their statistics in the last year record the fact that one out of twenty letter carriers in the United States has become the victim of some form of attack while delivering mail.
I am pleased to tell the hon. member that our record here in Canada is much better than that. I believe our ratio is something like one out of every 31 letter carriers. Whether or not this is because Canadian dogs are less aggressive or more polite than United States dogs, I do not know. It is still a serious problem. It seems that 200 out of 6,200 employees are subjected every year to this form of attack by neighbourhood dogs.

Supply-Post Office
Just how the hon. member would suggest we approach that problem, I do not know. In some years there have been campaigns to be kind to animals. I must say that the post office tries to be kind to every type of animal with which it has to deal. We sometimes wonder, however, whether the campaign should not be "to be kind to letter carriers". Perhaps there may be some way of enlisting the help of some of the finer dogs who do help the letter carrier by accompanying him along his route just because of the love they have in their hearts for the uniform of the Post Office Department.
It is a serious subject, because the owners of dogs must not forget that they are likely to lose letter carrier service to their homes if the dog prevents the letter carrier from delivering the mail. In addition, they are always liable to be charged for any workmen's compensation which may result from any injury their dog may have caused to the letter carrier. I would be very pleased if the hon. member would co-operate with me in some form of campaign to make sure that Canadian dogs are provided with a more orthodox type of dog food than the letter carriers of the Post Office Department.
I believe I can truly say that the many points that were raised by hon. members were pretty well discussed before the estimates committee. Of course that is no reason why they should not be brought before the house. Mention has been made of the fact that rural mail couriers should be paid a flat rate per mile. This was looked into by the department some years ago, and under the present act we ask for tenders for a contract. If we are to have the tendering system, we cannot fix a rate before asking for tenders. I do not think a true comparison can be made or relationship developed between the other employees of the department, who are classified civil servants, and the rural mail courier who tenders on a contract and enters into an agreement with the department to carry the mail on a particular route at a rate which he himself sets.
Under the present act, as hon. members know, any contractor may, after he has been executing his contract for two years, apply for adjustment of his rate if he feels he is not getting proper remuneration. This is done quite regularly by most rural mail contractors. Then the department can calculate the average that is paid in that particular area. If a man is receiving a rate that is below the average an adjustment is made in his contract.
The hon. member for Kootenay West mentioned the question of appeals by employees

of the department as the result of promotions. These appeals are looked after by the civil service commission. They are part of the whole civil service set-up and the department, as such, does not handle them. It is quite true that in many of these promotional examinations the postmaster in that particular district may be sitting on the examining board, but these appeals are completely outside of the hands of the department. They are done that way so that at no time can the senior employee who sat on the board have any decision on the appeal. I believe, therefore, there cannot be an injustice done.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will the minister tell me if they are allowed to appeal to any other authority other than the board that decides on the promotion?


Hugues Lapointe: They can appeal to the civil service commission directly, under the act.
The hon. member for Oxford mentioned the establishment of letter carrier service in certain localities. I think it is well understood, Mr. Chairman, that the department must have a standard which it tries to follow in connection with the establishment of new letter carrier services. Generally speaking the basis is that the locality where the post office is situated should be one where the post office has a revenue of $50,000 a year and there should be 2,500 points of call for letter carrier delivery in that locality. That is a standard but naturally, like any other formula used in a service such as the post office, it has to be flexible. So far as the revenue factor is concerned, it may vary according to circumstances. But generally speaking we find it is very difficult, unless we are sure of 2,500 points of call, to establish such a service. Each one is the subject of a special investigation, and it may be established even if all those conditions are not met. I will certainly be glad to look into the cases which the hon. member mentioned.
There were many other points brought up. The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace mentioned various things. He suggested that possibly we were lax in getting information on other postal services outside of this country and establishing comparisons of various activities in the department with those in other countries. Well, we do keep in constant touch with the postal services of other countries and particularly with the United States and with Britain, and we do make comparisons. However, these are not always useful because bases of statistics may vary.
For instance, the hon. member mentioned the incidence of crime and the number of break-ins in postal establishments in Canada as compared with those in the United States.

Well, this is one thing on which we have been in touch with them, but we find that their statistics, like some which the hon. member quoted, were based purely on the number of arrests and convictions but not on the number of offences committed. That is the same as the figures my hon. friend gave. He did mention that the increase in break-ins of private enterprise, shops of all types, had been 14 per cent. Well, actually the increase between the last fiscal year and this year, as far as offences are concerned, was only 2-3 per cent as regards break-ins in the post office establishments, but there again it is very difficult to make any comparison because I believe the figures he gave were for convictions and not the actual number of offences committed. In other words, one is comparing two different types of statistics.
The hon. member did mention at some length what he considered was the unequal rate of pay for postal employees doing similar work in two different cities, and he referred more particularly to officers of the department in charge of postal stations in Montreal and in Toronto. These rates of pay and the grading are done by the civil service commission. A survey of the various establishments of this department and of other departments is made continuously, and the civil service commission establish the grading of the employee in his particular postal establishment.
In Toronto we have 18 postal stations; in Montreal, I believe, we have 28, which means that the volume of work in the postal stations in those two cities is not the same. The grading is made, following a survey by the civil service commission, according to the volume of work, the responsibilities and the number of employees for which the particular postal officer is responsible, and not necessarily the revenue, because it may well be that the postal station in the downtown business section of Montreal or Toronto might have a very high revenue, whereas there is actually very little volume of mail handled. That is the basis on which the civil service commission determines the salaries. But at the present time, as I mentioned, this whole situation is being surveyed, not only as between the offices in those two cities but from coast to coast.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether any other comment I might make could be made on the other items as hon. members ask their questions?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether there is any item on which the minister would like to comment with regard to the matter I brought up relative to the two a day delivery or the one a day 67509-479
Supply-Post Office
delivery and its relation to the number of persons picking up mail at letter carriers' wickets. Does the minister propose to comment on that?


Hugues Lapointe: As regards the number of business firms that pick up mail, as the hon. member has mentioned, I might point out that this is one of the services given by the Post Office Department, called the bag service. The firms pay a rate for it. They prefer calling at the post office and getting the mail addressed to their firms in one bag rather than using a box. But it usually is the case that they get such a volume of mail that one or two boxes would not be sufficient to meet their need. Therefore we provide the service at a rate which would be the rate for the maximum size of box in the post office. All their mail is sorted and put into a bag and they come and get it themselves, just as they would call for their mail in a mail box.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I daresay that is true in some instances. I cannot believe it is true in other instances, particularly in a city where all the mail boxes are already rented. For instance, in the city of Kitchener all boxes are rented. In the city of Calgary there are almost as many persons picking up their mail at the letter carrier wicket as there are holding boxes in the post office. I cannot believe that is the complete explanation. In Edmonton, Alberta, there are practically half as many people picking up mail at the letter carrier wicket as there are holding boxes.
I grant you that that may be the case in a fair percentage of instances, but I do not believe it is the case in other instances. It has been brought to my attention, and it was brought to my attention particularly at the time of the increase in postal rates and the reduction to one a day service, that a great many people wanted to pick up their mail rather than have it delivered if it meant a 24-hour delay. That condition still obtains in the city of Hamilton in a business establishment within three blocks of the general post office. The business houses are receiving their mail 24 hours late by reason of the fact that they have one a day delivery and the mail goes out the first thing in the morning. Surely the minister could rectify that situation by either making available more post boxes or have two a day delivery to business houses.


Hugues Lapointe: I shall be very pleased to look into that, Mr. Chairman, but I am told that as a general rule the reason this service is made use of by firms is that they prefer to have it. Now, it may be that the situation varies in different localities, but that has

Supply-Post Office
been the experience oi the department. However, I shall be glad to look into this.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I report once more that since March of this year there have been two boxes for rent in downtown Toronto and two for rent in Hamilton. You just cannot get them.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am very glad the minister answered some of my questions and gave a sort of rule of thumb basis on which mail delivery service is supplied to communities. I am also very glad to hear that he is going to look into and consider carefully the situation in Ingersoll and Tillsonburg. However, I would like to hear if as yet there has been any melting of the minister's heart with respect to the old ladies in Ontario who have served in post offices and are deserving of small pensions for the probably two or three years which will constitute the remainder of their lives.


Hugues Lapointe: I can assure the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, that the minister's heart as he well knows softens very easily-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That's news.


Hugues Lapointe: -but this is a question of policy, and the minister cannot allow his own personal feelings to decide the question. It is being looked into at the present time.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Did I understand the
minister correctly when he said that he could not furnish an answer to my question now but that he would do so later in writing or by a letter?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I have this information now. The post office referred to by the hon. member is a revenue post office; that is, it is a post office where the annual revenue is under $3,000. The postmaster in the locality resigned. In the case of a revenue post office the postmaster has to provide the accommodation himself, and when the postmaster resigns and a new postmaster is appointed the responsibility for the accommodation is that of the new postmaster. That is the situation at the present time.


Gage Workman Montgomery: The department did not pay any rent for the former post office; is that right?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There was until this spring, in the case of postmasters in revenue post offices, a rental allowance which was paid to the postmaster above his salary. When the revision of salaries took place this spring the salaries of these revenue postmasters were raised, and they now include what was the equivalent of the rental allowance, so that at the present time a postmaster in a revenue post office does not

receive a rental allowance but his salary includes compensation for providing the necessary quarters.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Mr. Chairman, I have another question. Has there been a new postmaster appointed at this post office, and if so was it done under competition?


Hugues Lapointe: My understanding is that he has been replaced-, Mr. Chairman.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Was it done under
competition?


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry but I do not
understand.


Gage Workman Montgomery: In a revenue post office such as the one we are discussing is the appointment not made after competition, or is it purely a political appointment?


James Sinclair: The veterans' preference
applies.


Hugues Lapointe: Under the act, Mr. Chairman, the appointment is made by the Postmaster General. We have, of course, the veterans' preference, as the hon. member knows. Every legion branch in the locality is advised that this post office is going to become vacant and a notice is published in the post office, but it is not a civil service classified appointment.


Gage Workman Montgomery: That is the information I wanted.


Hugues Lapointe: Only when the revenue reaches $3,000 is the postmaster's appointment-


Gage Workman Montgomery: I did not catch that.


Hugues Lapointe: Only when the revenue of the post office reaches $3,000 does the appointment of a postmaster become a classified appointment under the civil service.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Just one more question in connection with that matter. Does the Post Office Department lay down any specifications for the space that must be provided for the revenue post office when the space is provided by the postmaster and he does not receive any more than his salary? Is he able to decide himself how much space he is going to provide for the public in the post office?


Hugues Lapointe: No, the department sends an inspector into the locality and he has to give approval to the accommodation which is going to be provided by the postmaster. In fact, if the person who is to be appointed postmaster cannot provide the accommodation which we consider to be necessary, then he cannot be appointed postmaster. He has to provide it, and we check on that.


James Alexander McBain: I would like to ask the Postmaster General three questions. Perhaps I can group them and save a little time. When was the last over-all adjustment made giving rural mail carriers or contract carriers an adjustment of their contracts? How was this adjustment arrived at? Is consideration now being given to a raise for them, and if so when will it come into effect?


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry; may I have the third question again?


James Alexander McBain: Is consideration now being given to an adjustment in the contracts and if so when will it come into effect?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member may recall that when the Post Office Act was revised during the session of 1953 a section was brought in at that time to authorize the Postmaster General to make adjustments. Up to then there was no authority for the department or for the Postmaster General to make any adjustments or give any increases. This was done during the war under an order in council passed under the Emergency Powers Act. At that time in 1953, section 33 was amended to give the Postmaster General authority to make adjustments and give increases under certain conditions which are mentioned in that particular section. Following the passing of that act in the 1953 session adjustments were made after a survey throughout the country of all rural mail contracts.
This particular section makes it necessary that a contractor must have been executing his contract for a minimum of two years before an application for an increase can be considered by the department and there is no discretion on the part of the minister or anyone in the department to deal with these matters until the contractor has been executing his contract for at least two years.


James Alexander McBain: I would like the minister to answer my third question. Is consideration now being given to an adjustment for those who had been holding contracts for two years or longer?


Hugues Lapointe: That has now become a continuing process, Mr. Chairman. Any contractor may-and he must personally-make application after two years if he wants to have an increase in his contract. We receive them regularly and all these new contractors, as my hon. friend mentioned, after two years would write in and ask that their contracts be considered from the point of view of receiving an increase.


James Alexander McBain: I have one other question. What are the necessary steps that have to be taken in order to have a letter carrier service established in a suburban area?
Supply-Post Office


Hugues Lapointe: A letter carrier service?


James Alexander McBain: Yes.


Hugues Lapointe: Not a rural mail carrier
service?


James Alexander McBain: No, a letter carrier service.


Hugues Lapointe: Is my hon. friend referring to a suburban area adjacent to an area already served by letter carrier?


James Alexander McBain: This area is adjacent to the city of St. Thomas.


Hugues Lapointe: In answer to a question by the hon. member for Oxford I outlined the standards which had to be met before a new service would be established. In the case of a suburban area adjacent to a municipality where a letter carrier service already exists, the conditions and number of calls must be such that the service can be given merely by increasing the number of letter carriers and extending the routes. Each case is considered individually, and it is difficult to say just what standards have to be met.


James Alexander McBain: This matter came up just before the 1953 general election when these people petitioned to have a service. They were promised that if they would elect a Liberal government they would be taken care of. Three years have gone by and they have heard nothing morfe about it. Do they have to sign another petition before any consideration will be given to this matter?


Hugues Lapointe: I do not know the particulars of the case to which my hon. friend has referred, but it would not be necessary to sign a petition. If according to the views of the department-and all members may not agree-it is decided that the request for a service cannot be granted, that matter is kept under continuous review. It is looked into year after year to see whether conditions have changed so that the service may be extended.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I was interested in the reply made by the minister to the hon. member for Oxford with regard to inaugurating a letter carrier service. The minister mentioned two norms which must be met, a minimum of $50,000 revenue and 2,500 call points. The interesting part of the minister's remarks was his statement that there would be a little flexibility, and that these norms would not always necessarily be met. I should like to explore that a little further to find out just what the minister meant. If the minister will say that the application made by the town of Dauphin will be considered I shall say no more. It happens that a survey was made not long ago and we came just under

Supply-Post Office
the 2,500 mark, but we were informed that we could not have a letter carrier service. If the minister will say that the matter will be reviewed I shall have nothing more to say.


Hugues Lapointe: I can assure the hon. member that the case of Dauphin will be reviewed. However, it would be reviewed without any action on the part of the minister, because that is done automatically by that division of the department. As I mentioned before, when the request has been made a survey is carried out, and if it is found that the conditions cannot be met the matter is kept under continuous review and as the area develops it may be able to meet the minimum standards and the service would be established without any further request being made.


Mr. Monleith:: Can the minister indicate the policy followed in listing the telephone numbers of the post office in the telephone directories?


Hugues Lapointe: I am told that the telephone number of a post office is listed in the telephone directory only in cases where there is a letter carrier service. Otherwise the number is not listed, the reason being that where such numbers have been listed the postmaster found that he spent a good deal of his time answering telephone requests as to whether there was mail for a particular individual.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is listed only where there is a carrier service?


Hugues Lapointe: It may be that there are one or two cases where it is not listed, but we are not aware of any.


Clarence Gillis: I am aware of quite a few places where there is a letter carrier service and the telephone number is not listed, and I think rightly so.


Harry Oliver White: What percentage of first-class mail is actually airborne?


Hugues Lapointe: I am informed that about 50 per cent of first class mail is for local delivery, and that approximately 60 per cent of the remainder would be carried by air mail.


Harry Oliver White: That means that about 70 per cent of the people who are paying first-class postage are subsidizing the other 30 per cent who are having their mail airborne.


John Borden Hamilton: Can the minister give the committee any information about the demolition of the building at York and Fleet streets in Toronto?


Hugues Lapointe: That question would be more appropriate for the Department of Public
[Mr. Zaplitny.l
Works, as we have nothing to do with the actual buildings we occupy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
325. Operations-including salaries and other expenses of staff post offices, district offices, railway mail service staffs, and supplies, equipment and other items for revenue post offices, also including administration, $81,501,011.
Mr. Hansell:: I am pleased to learn that the department is kind to dumb animals, but I should like to ask the minister if a little more kindness could not be shown on occasion to members of the human family. I have in mind the small town postmaster who is not on pension, but who after a long term of service finds his services no longer required. I have a particular case in mind, where the post office in a small community was closed and where the postmaster had served the community for 26 years. By reason of faster train service and perhaps one or two other factors, the post office was closed and the district was turned into a rural route district service post office in a larger community. The postmaster's services were no longer required.
During the 26 years this postmaster never failed to meet the trains and dispatch and receive mail. Rain or shine, 40 below zero or summertime, he was on the job. Now, in the letter he writes to me, he says:
Small salaries, thus unpensionable, at over 65, the postmastership abruptly terminated with no appreciation or word of thanks, though I note inspectors ride up and down the province presenting ribbons or medals to longish term operators of stamp wickets, etc.
I shall not take any more time on this, but I wonder whether the minister could tell the house whether or not some provision cannot be written into the regulations respecting some form of compensation for these postmasters, even though it may be on a contributory basis. Is it not possible to bring those people into some sort of pension plan?


Hugues Lapointe: If the hon. member would provide me with the name of the particular post office in the case he mentioned, I should be glad to look into it. The rule now is that a full-time postmaster whose minimum salary is $900 or more will be superannuated.


Ernest George Hansell: I shall bring the particular case to the minister's attention.


William McLean Hamilton: The
Postmaster General did not reply to a number of points I raised earlier, to one or two of which a reply might be expected. Before pointing them out to him, I should say that I thought his answer to the two points he dealt with, that is the discrepancies in staff gradings as between the two cities and the

comparison of gradings, shrugged off two rather important problems with some quick, statistical manipulation that bothered me a little.
If he examines in Hansard the details that were put there, I think he will see that the situation, particularly as regards the staff gradings in these two cities, is serious and that it covers situations in which people in substantially the same type of offices, with substantially the same number of employees and with substantially the same revenue, have different gradings. That is extremely important and should be rectified, and the people brought up to the higher grade.
Having said that, I wonder whether he would like to tell us about the research work being done in the department, with particular reference to the sorting machine and the expenditures on that to date. That was one of the questions I asked before.


Hugues Lapointe: I am afraid I cannot fully agree with the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace when he says that I discarded lightly his remarks as regards discrepancies in salaries of postal employees in various cities. I mentioned that a survey had been made and that the civil service commission, with a man of the department, was looking into it. Unfortunately the department itself does not set salaries.
As regards the electronic sorting machine to which my hon. friend referred in his earlier remarks today, I am sorry that I could not ask interested members of the committee, as I had undertaken to do during the committee sittings, to come and see that machine in operation. At that time I mentioned that certain components were being worked on by the contractors who are doing the electronic side of the operation and were away from our laboratories in Ottawa. I am told that not all of these components have yet been returned. However, anything we have here at the present time can be seen by any hon. member. If the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace would like to come down to see the laboratories and what we have there at the present time, and have our research staff explain to him the projected operations of that machine, I should be very glad to make arrangements at any time-tomorrow, if he so desires.


William McLean Hamilton: When is this million dollar monster going to get into operation, so we can see it in use?


Hugues Lapointe: There is no such thing as a million dollar monster; or if there is, it exists only in the mind of the hon. gentleman from Notre Dame de Grace. It so
Supply-Post Office
happens that the Post Office Department is the only organization in Canada that carries out postal duties. Any research work that has to be done in connection with the operation of the postal service has to be done by the department. We are doing very advanced research work in electronics with a view to developing and installing machines in the larger post offices for sortation, for quicker and more efficient service. Any development work of that kind is not done simply and cheaply. We have given all the details of expenditures on that machine in the estimates committee, and my friend knows about them. We also told my hon. friend that we expected that the machine would possibly be installed in the Ottawa post office at the end of this year. I am told that the schedule might be delayed by a couple of weeks.


John Borden Hamilton: That would be the second delay, would it not, in the plans for installing this machine?


Hugues Lapointe: I do not know whether it is the second delay. I will admit that it might be the third delay. That is a situation which arises when any development work is done in that field. Surely my hon. friend, who is so familiar with all the activities of business and so on, knows that situation quite well.


William McLean Hamilton: I am merely trying to find out a few things about a million dollar expenditure of the Post Office Department, and I do not see why the Postmaster General is so annoyed about it at this point, as is so evident from his attitude if not from the words he has used.


Mr. Hosking:: He is not the only one.


William McLean Hamilton: The department has had some experiences with other important machines. It has spent a long time before it got them sorted out in the initial stages, when they were not satisfactory. It is doing research work which may ultimately bring us great benefit. But surely we are entitled to have information in this house without annoying the minister. If I am annoying the minister, I shall not stop but I shall apologize.


An hon. Member:: It is not only the minister who is annoyed; it is all the members of the house.


William McLean Hamilton: Perhaps now the minister might like to tell us whether he thinks it will be a good idea or whether he is considering as was suggested in the estimates committee, transferring

Supply-Post Office
security operations from the post office to the R.C.M.P., and their co-ordination in that Reid.


Hugues Lapointe: First may I assure the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace that he does not annoy me the least bit. I simply wanted to point out to him that the information for which he was asking had been given to him in the estimates committee, that the proceedings of the estimates committee are printed and that they are public documents.
I therefore could not see why he would not have that information.
As to the point he brought up and which we discussed at the time, namely the use of the R.C.M.P., I think at that time the hon. member had in mind that there were certain offences with regard to which the R.C.M.P. seem to take the full responsibility of investigation and police work. At that time he referred to counterfeiting and possibly to narcotics.
This matter was looked into. We made inquiries from the R.C.M.P. and from the Department of Justice. As regards break-ins and robberies in connection with individual postal establishments, we were told that the R.C.M.P. would not be justified in taking over in those provinces where there is a local police force or in those provinces where there is a provincial police force, unless they were called upon to do so. We were told that as to certain offences such as those which he mentioned, it was considered by the provincial governments which, under the constitution, have the responsibility for the administration of justice, they were of a national character, so to speak, and that investigation work could be more efficiently done by the R.C.M.P. But that is only done because such is the view of the provincial authorities which have that responsibility for the administration of justice.
In certain other cases such as revenue cases and narcotic cases the work which is done by the R.C.M.P. is part of the administration of the act itself. As my hon. friend knows, they follow the narcotics trade, so to speak, and supervise the local sale of narcotics because it is done under a federal statute. That is part of the administration of the act which the R.C.M.P. undertake. But as I mentioned earlier, in the case of these break-ins and robberies it is considered that these are offences committed in a specific locality; and if the locality has a police force or if the province has its own police force, they are the responsible people. The R.C.M.P. will of course co-operate with them, and very often they are brought in and are asked by the provincial authorities to co-operate. But it is primarily a provincial responsibility.
[Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace).1


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, over the week end there was considerable comment around Ottawa to the effect that a new postal station was going to be erected in the west end of the city. Certainly I think that news will be greeted with certain acclaim in that area and I have no doubt that those affected will be very pleased about it. On the other hand, there is another part of the city known as the Glebe. For whatever reason, my attention was drawn by telephone several times today to the fact that they had been making representations for a post office building in that area and that nothing whatsoever had been done for them. Since this is close to home,
I am wondering whether the minister might give us an explanation with regard to that matter, or whether he can say when the Glebe might expect to receive their own station.


Hugues Lapointe: As my hon. friend knows, construction of any buildings to be used by the Post Office Department is done by the Department of Public Works, and any announcement of the construction of a new building would necessarily come from the Department of Public Works and not from this department.


William McLean Hamilton: Surely, Mr. Chairman, the public works department just does not go out and say, "We should like to build a post office" in this area or that area. As the minister very well knows they do it on the recommendation of the Post Office Department. I was asking him what his attitude was toward the recommendation for this post office, whether it had been recommended and if not, what expectation there was that it would be recommended.


Hugues Lapointe: My hon. friend will realize that the Glebe is relatively close to downtown Ottawa and that the west end is about five miles away. It is quite true that these buildings are constructed by the Department of Public Works at the request of the Post Office Department. We continuously make surveys of the town, city or metropolitan area in which we are giving service. As we find that expansion is taking place which is going to extend too greatly our existing services, a new postal station is built and a new distribution centre starts from there.
That is what is taking place out in that area which, as I have already mentioned, is some five miles away from centre town, as I understand it. The need has not yet been felt as far as the area to which my hon. friend refers is concerned. This matter will be continuously reviewed. As soon as the department feels that another building will

be necessary for efficient service, the request will be made on the public works department.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to make this suggestion, except that I understand the Minister of Finance is arranging to have a very nice surplus this year so he can pass on adequate tax cuts next year,-


Walter Edward Harris: That would not be the case if you had your way. You wanted me to give it to the provinces.


John Borden Hamilton: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, since the Minister of Finance has interjected, it would seem to me that if it went back in that way it would go back to the taxpayers more fairly than by anything that will be done by this government.


James Sinclair: No. The people want to spend their own money.


John Borden Hamilton: If I might be allowed to continue, I should like to say this. I made the opening reference because of my feeling in connection with this estimate. I have looked at the details on page 433. I am certainly impressed with the large groups of employees. Certainly, we cannot say that we are paying them adequately when you talk about postal clerks, mail handlers and letter carriers. I would respectfully suggest that before next year's estimates come around, the minister might seriously look over the situation as far as pay is concerned in order to see that they get an adequate living wage.


Hugues Lapointe: I should like to point out to the hon. member that these salaries have been adjusted since these estimates were printed.


William McLean Hamilton: should like to confirm my understanding of something the minister said a few moments ago. I understood him to say-and we shall use a non-controversial term-that the electronic sorting machine will be in practical operation in the post office about the middle of January, 1957.


Hugues Lapointe: That is what is expected at this time, yes; that it will be in actual operation in the Ottawa post office.


William McLean Hamilton: When does the minister expect that it will be in condition for any interested parties to inspect it?


Hugues Lapointe: If my hon. friend wants to come down to the laboratory tomorrow morning I will see to it that the staff is there to
Supply-Post Office
explain to him what is there. However, I mentioned that certain components are being worked on by the contractor for the electronic device part of the machine in Toronto, and that they would not be there. Hence the whole machine would not be in operation for my hon. friend to see.


John Borden Hamilton: That is the point I was making. When is the pilot machine, the one that we are talking about, going to be in operation for test runs again?


Hugues Lapointe: It will be test run this fall at the manufacturer's laboratory. I am not an electronics engineer, but I understand that certain components of that machine can be tested and developed separately from the rest of the machine. The machine has been assembled and tried out, and certain adjustments needed to be made. The components are sent back to the manufacturers where they keep on testing and developing them. It is very difficult to say just on what date the components will be assembled this fall in Ottawa for the machine to be tested as one unit. It is expected, however, that it will be in the Ottawa post office by January 15.


John Borden Hamilton: May I remind the minister that my remarks still stand notwithstanding the adjustment, which we knew about.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
326. Transportation-movement of mail by land, air and water, including administration, $46,388,302.
Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Postmaster General whether it has been possible to bring about any reduction in the length of time it takes to get surface mail out from the United Kingdom? From time to time I get complaints about the long delays in getting that mail across. For example, in one case it took 23 days. Has there been any improvement in that situation?


Hugues Lapointe: I am informed that there have been new steamers brought into service by some lines, particularly Cunard and Canadian Pacific, which will give faster surface transportation. Outside of that, however, there have been no changes.


Howard Charles Green: Why is it so difficult to get the mail across in a reasonable time? Apparently the service was much faster many years ago.


Hugues Lapointe: One difficulty is that there is much less shipping now than before the war. There are not as many ships or as many scheduled sailings as there used to be; that is the only difference. Furthermore, many of the ships now are slower ships than

Supply-Post Office
those big liners that used to exist before the war many of which were sunk, as my hon. friend knows.


Gage Workman Montgomery: In the first place, I should like to say a word under this item because I feel we should throw a few bouquets to some of the officials in the department if they deserve them. There have been improvements in the rural mail delivery in my constituency. I want the minister and the department to know that I feel there have been improvements. Every time I get up to say a word I am not critical of the department. There has been some improvement, but there is still room for further improvement.
There is one thing I should like to make very plain to the minister, and I am very sincere about it. I find that when these matters are taken up with the officials of the department, the superintendent and all the way through, they are handled fairly and everybody seems to be happy. However, in some cases there seem to be a lot of people who have influence with the minister, and the minute that happens I find there is not so much satisfaction. It is for that reason I should like to point out that I feel the more this department is left free to handle investigations and make recommendations, the better the service will be.
There has been improvement in several cases in my constituency. I have taken up one particular mail route with the minister because the situation is pressing, but I have had no reply. I presume he is looking into the matter. I must say that since the late postmaster general passed on, information has not been conveyed to me quite as promptly. I should like to pay my respects to the late postmaster general. I was a new member while he was postmaster general, but I always got wonderful co-operation and it was a great pleasure to work with him. The particular route to which I am referring is out of Colchester; I know the minister will recall it. I have been asked to bring this matter to the attention of the minister.
A few years ago the mail route stopped a half mile short of the last residence on this highway. I will admit frankly that I have never been able to find out why that was. I am not going into the whole story, because it is late, but the minister can find out the details from some other source if he so desires. During a period of four months when this contract was renewed the mail was carried to this last residence, and then it was stopped. This resident happens to be a widow, and now she has to walk back this half mile to get her mail. I sincerely

ask the minister to look into this, because I do not think it is fair and neither do this lady's neighbours feel it is fair that a woman should have to walk half a mile to get her mail when she lives in the same settlement as the others on that route.
In addition to that, there is a little branch off this route on which there are three boxes.
I understand there has been some relaxation of the rule concerning the mail carrier going off a short distance to service residences. I have already written about that, because I have had several letters from the person at the end of that route. She has a small family, and it is very difficult for her to go and get the mail. I hope the matter will be given consideration.
There is another thing I want to mention. There are two mail routes that might be put together if the two contracts expired at the same time. Since we now have the automobile and better roads, I believe consideration could be given to improving some of these routes by amalgamation. The roads are kept plowed in the wintertime and service could be rendered by automobile.
Those are some of the things I wanted to bring to the minister's attention. I did want him to know that we have been very well served and the service has been improved down there.


Hugues Lapointe: I shall be glad to give the matter consideration.


John Borden Hamilton: I wonder if the minister would give me a breakdown of the figure on page 436 of the estimate book, $11,135,000, the payment for mail service by air, amongst the four or five major companies involved.


Hugues Lapointe: May I have that question again? What breakdown does the hon. gentleman want?


John Borden Hamilton: I asked for a breakdown of the payments to the four or five major companies involved in the $11,135,000 for mail service by air. If that is not possible, perhaps the minister could give us a breakdown of last year's figures.


Hugues Lapointe: I could give the hon. member the breakdown by various air lines, if that is what he wishes.


John Borden Hamilton: Yes.


Hugues Lapointe: The year 1955-56 will, I think, give my hon. friend a pretty good idea. Trans-Canada received $8,419,600; and Canadian Pacific Air Lines received $1,778,500. The rest consists of various smaller lines. It is quite a lengthy list. It varies between $1,000 and $211,000. The latter figure applies

to Maritime Central Airways, which does a lot of the services in the maritimes. Eastern Provincial Airways received $150,000; Central Northern Airways Limited, $101,500; Northern Wings Limited, $53,500; Quebec Air Services, $45,000; Queen Charlotte Air Lines, $43,300; Saskatchewan Government Airways, $16,000. The remainder consists of smaller amounts. As I say, they vary between $1,000 and $10,000.


John Borden Hamilton: This includes the international service?


Hugues Lapointe: It is both domestic and international.


Mr. Charlton:: Is it because Trans-Canada is the only air line that is carrying mail in certain districts that the amount is so large for T.C.A. and so little for the others?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes. As my hon. friend knows, Trans-Canada is the only air line that handles transcontinental traffic, and similarly it is the only Canadian company that does trans-Atlantic flying, so that involves a very high volume of mail, both transcontinental and trans-Atlantic.


John Alpheus Charlton: If all flrst-class mail that it is possible to carry by air is carried by air, why is it necessary to sell air mail stamps and why should a good many people keep on using air mail stamps?


Hugues Lapointe: I think the stamp to which my hon. friend refers is the 7-cent stamp. I should point out to my hon. friend that if he looks at it he will see that there is nothing on it to indicate that it is an air mail stamp. It has nothing written on it but "Postage, Canada, 7 cents". There is nothing to indicate that it is an air mail stamp. However, it does serve because all first-class matter, letters up to 8 ounces, are carried on the all-up service at 5 cents, but anything else, parcel post, and so on, will cost more, and the 7-cent stamp is used. It is also used for air mail outside of Canada. There is nothing to restrict the use of that particular 7-cent stamp to any postal facilities.


John Alpheus Charlton: But it is understood by most people, and it has been stated in many instances, that if the person wants to be sure his letter goes by air mail, then he must put a 7-cent stamp on it. Air mail stickers for letters are still available at post offices. You do not ordinarily put an air mail sticker on parcel post.


Hugues Lapointe: I agree; the stickers still exist and they will be used because we must have them for air mail outside of Canada or for other postal items outside of flrst-class mail which are carried by air mail. We have
Supply-Post Office
the sticker, and the 7-cent stamp is used for that purpose. But, as I pointed out, there is nothing on that stamp to indicate that it is an airmail stamp. It is just a Canadian stamp to the value of 7 cents.


John Alpheus Charlton: But that does not alter the fact that many people today are still paying 7 cents for an air mail sticker on the letter to be sure it goes by air. Is that necessary
or not?


Hugues Lapointe: It is not necessary. All firstclass matter, up to 8 ounces, will be carried by air for 5 cents, if that is the quickest way to get that letter to the addressee. If it can be carried just as fast by train, then it will go by train.


John Alpheus Charlton: What percentage of the mail from Ottawa to Toronto goes by train?


Hugues Lapointe: At the present time there would be a very high percentage, because since April 30 we have had a new train service between Montreal and Toronto which does nothing else. It was put on by the C.N.R. between Montreal and Toronto both ways and it carries nothing but mail. The Ottawa mail goes from Ottawa to Brockville by motor vehicle and is placed on that train during the night, sorted on the way down and delivered the next morning in Toronto or Montreal, depending on where it is being sent.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is it the same from Toronto to Ottawa?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes.


Mr. Rowe:: I should like to ask a question with reference to the supplementary truck service. Is it the department's policy to maintain the same service where one train has been cut off in villages in western Ontario because of the Canadian National Railways' adjustment?


Hugues Lapointe: As soon as we are advised by the railway company that they intend to curtail a certain train service, or change their schedule, or perhaps bring it down from six times a week to only three times a week, we immediately get ready to set up a truck service so there will be no break in the general service.


William Earl Rowe: I have thought that was your purpose and policy, and I have been rather defending the government for the last six or eight months up in my district where they have had mail service coming in in the morning and going out at night so that business people could answer mail on the same day. I have had repeated requests to urge the government to continue this service, because in the past 28 months that has not been the

Supply-Post Office
situation and they are getting so hostile that I cannot keep them in very good humour toward the government unless it is changed.


Hugues Lapointe: I can assure the hon. gentleman that I shall look into it immediately, because if there is one thing I do not want it is that his constituency should be hostile to him.


William Earl Rowe: I think it should be improved in view of a possible election next summer.


John Borden Hamilton: Does all the trans-Atlantic airmail from Canada go by T.C.A.?


Hugues Lapointe: Not necessarily, because there is now a service between Vancouver and Amsterdam which is a C.P.A. service, and there is a certain volume of mail from the western part of the country to Europe which goes by that service. The remainder does go by T.C.A.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
670. Operations-further amount required, $713,800.
William McLean Hamilton: Will the minister tell us what the additional amount of $141,000 for professional and special services is for?


Hugues Lapointe: It is an additional sum required	for this	electronic research	project.


William McLean Hamilton: And how much was provided for that, Mr. Chairman, in the regular estimates for the year?


Hugues Lapointe: 


William McLean Hamilton: That would make the total expenditure on the machine to date approximately $850,000; is that correct?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes.


William McLean Hamilton: Why was it necessary to bring in this additional $140,000 late in the year, Mr. Chairman? Was it not provided for earlier? Did the planning of this machine not extend that far?


Hugues Lapointe: I am informed that in the planning of the main estimates at that time it was not thought that the machine would have progressed to the stage it has, nor was it thought that this additional amount would be needed quite as quickly to complete the project as will be the case.


William McLean Hamilton: Perhaps one of the reasons I am so interested in this, Mr. Chairman, is because of a chance remark of the deputy postmaster general which was quoted in Time magazine of April 18, 1955, when he said in part:

. . . eventually, I suppose, they may even find an electronic brain to replace me.
I hope the Postmaster General is not progressing in that direction. Could the Postmaster General give us a breakdown of the additional amount of $370,100 for the acquisition of equipment in the supplementary item?


Hugues Lapointe: Locks, $18,000; battery
charging equipment, $11,951; motor equipment, trucks, $20,500; mail boxes, one lot,
1,000	boxes, $63,750; one group of 500 boxes, $31,875; and scales, $4,000.


John Borden Hamilton: What are you going to call this machine; Walter?


William McLean Hamilton: Does that add up to $370,000?


Hugues Lapointe: There is a contract with the research company for the supply of 20 automatic facingup machines, and part of that shipment might be delivered this year. We have provided this supplementary estimate in case the delivery does come this year.


William McLean Hamilton: Does it have any connection with your electronic sorting machine?


Hugues Lapointe: None whatsoever.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-
54. To provide for the requirements of the sound broadcasting service (to amount formerly authorized by chap. 32, Revised Statutes, $6,250,000.
The Chairman:: Shall this resolution carry?


Solon Earl Low: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I cannot let this item pass without some further comment. When these estimates were before us on July 28, which I believe was the last time we considered them, I had not finished saying what I wanted to say because time was against me for some reason; I think perhaps I took a slow pace.
I was saying when time was called against me, Mr. Chairman, that the policy the government has followed with respect to the C.B.C. has been most contradictory; that it cannot be justified in any way by logic or reason, and that the government should take a more careful look at that policy to see if something cannot be done to make it represent the kind of policy that one would expect to find in a country that is supposed to be a free enterprise country.
I made the statement that the government had taken unto itself under its policy the right to operate broadcasting stations, but refused to allow any other government in Canada to do a similar thing no matter what their justification might be. I was quite surprised at an outburst by the minister when I was talking

about continued applications of radio station CKUA in Edmonton for a commercial licence. The minister burst in with this comment, as reported at page 6642 of Hansard for July 28, 1956:
How long was it used for political broadcasts?
I believe I said at the time, Mr. Chairman, that this statement let the cat out of the bag because for quite a long time, since 1941 in fact, the minister had held to the one answer that the reason radio station CKUA in Edmonton was not given a commercial licence so it could step up its power and be of greater service in the educational field in Alberta was that there was not room for another station in the city of Edmonton.
I drew the minister's attention to the fact that since the last application was made by the Alberta government in 1947 for a commercial licence for CKUA, the university station, two new stations had been granted licences in the city of Edmonton, and then it was that he burst in with his statement, "Well, how long was it used for political broadcasts?" indicating that what has been in the mind of the minister and his colleagues all along was the fear that granting CKUA a commercial licence would endanger the political longevity of this government or the Liberal party, because they were afraid the Alberta government would be using it for political broadcasting.
Nothing as unreasonable as that has been heard in this house for a long time. The minister knows full well that if the members of the government of Alberta wanted to use CKUA for political broadcasts they would not have applied to the C.B.C. for a commercial licence. He knows that as well as he knows he is sitting here. But he used that as an aspersion, as some form of ridicule, indicating that the reason C.B.C. did not grant CKUA a commercial licence was on the ground it would be used for political broadcasting. That indicates the level at which the minister's mind has been working in connection with this thing ever since the application was first made by the department of telephones of the government of Alberta back in 1941.
I say to the minister and the C.B.C. that their action in this case has been reprehensible and cannot be justified by any stretch of the imagination. Moreover, it indicates the truth of what I said, that the policy of the government in connection with the C.B.C. is most contradictory.
There is one other thing I wanted to mention in connection with C.B.C. activities, and I intend to deal with this by way of questions to the minister in connection with some of the programs which have been sent
Supply-C.B.C.
over C.B.C. The first question I wanted to ask the minister was whether he is aware that intensive ideological warfare is going on today and has been going on around us for quite some time in the past, conducted very largely by those who are dedicated to the task of imposing communism upon the people of the earth, those in Canada included, by force if necessary but probably and preferably by ideological and propaganda methods. I wanted to get the minister's answer on that. Is he aware of that ideological warfare in which we are engaged? If he prefers not to answer now, if he would like to wait, it is all right with me. I wish he would make a note of my questions, because I am going to pursue them and get an answer even if it takes until next week.
The second question is this. Does the minister not know that the C.B.C. radio and television services have been used in the not too distant past and doubtless are still being used from time to time by diabolically clever subversive agencies in this ideological warfare, and that government money, that is taxpayers' money, is being made available to pay the very persons who are attempting to destroy the Canadian people and take away their freedom? Is he not aware of that? If not, I shall draw to his attention some things he should know.


James Joseph McCann: I can answer that. I am not aware of that. It is not my duty as liaison minister between the C.B.C. and parliament to give an opinion as to what type of programs is carried. I presume that everybody in Canada knows something more or less of the ideological warfare that is going on. That is going on all over the democratic world, in Canada as much as any place else.


Solon Earl Low: I am glad to have the minister's reply to that question, but no matter how often he may say that he is not responsible, he is responsible to this house for what goes on in C.B.C. He is responsible for the application of government policy, and must keep himself informed about what is going on. Let me ask him another question which I think will help get us nearer to the point I want to make. Does the minister approve of the use of the taxpayers' money to a very substantial extent by the C.B.C. to state such a patently communist line through radio and television dramas as one entitled "We Shall Not Be Moved", which was produced over the trans-Canada network on Saturday, October 1, 1955, from 8 to 10 p.m.


James Joseph McCann: I did not hear the program and cannot express any opinion about it.


Solon Earl Low: That just indicates how little the minister does know about what is going

Supply-C.B.C.
on. It is about time he began to inform himself, because things are going on in the C.B.C. that the people of Canada are beginning to resent very much.


James Joseph McCann: Does the hon. member think I have nothing to do but to censor the C.B.C.? The hon. member may have time to sit and look at these things on Saturday evenings, but I have not.


Solon Earl Low: The minister is answerable to parliament for what goes on. The board of governors of the C.B.C. are not answerable to parliament except through the minister. The only way we can get at them is through the minister. While the minister may plead ignorance as to what is going on, let me say to him that he must be answerable to us for what goes on. Let me point out to him something about this extravaganza "We Shall Not Be Moved" about which he does not seem to know but about which he should know. Perhaps we can help him get the answer.
As I say, this was put out over the C.B.C. network on Saturday, October 1, 1955. It took two solid hours of the best time of the day and there was not even one single break to give the usual announcements.


James Joseph McCann: Did you listen to it for two hours?


Solon Earl Low: No, but I have a report of the facts. Let me go further. This play was built around Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, who is a Smith act criminal in jail in the United States because of her activities under that act. Does the minister not know that this was picked up by the C.B.C.? How, nobody seems to know, but I am going to try to find out during the course of my questioning. This extravaganza must have cost the taxpayers of this country a large amount of money. It attracted tremendous attention from the communist press the world over. I have in my hand a photostatic copy of page 7 of the Daily People's World, which is the communist organ of the western United States. They say in great headlines:
Joe Hill, Gurley Flynn vividly depicted in Canada radio show.
I want to read a few extracts from this communist report of what happened on Saturday, October 1 and what the C.B.C. did to advance the cause of communism. This is a special to the Daily People's World from Toronto and reads:
The Canadian Broadcasting Co. made radio history October 1 when it presented a two-hour special program "We shall not be moved" in which Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, now jailed as a Smith act victim-

Criminal is the word I used.
-is portrayed as a leading figure.
The program related in story, narration, music, chorus (including a complete rendition of "I Dreamt I Saw Joe Hill Last Night" by Paul Robeson on a recording) the frameup, trial, fight back movement, execution, and Chicago funeral of Joe Hill.
The production took over the best possible broadcasting time-eight to ten p.m. Saturday. There were no interruptions-even the usual station breaks were omitted.
Diana Maddox, Canada's leading actress, played the part of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn; another top star, Hugh McNamara, enacted Joe Hill, and a supporting cast of nearly 100 players and singers, including many of Canada's finest performers, made it brilliant and exciting. Nothing was played down, distorted or withheld out of deference to the state of Utah, the U.S. state department, nor out of fear of reaction in either country.
Then, after telling about the outstanding artists who were gathered together, more than 100 of them, to put on this extravaganza, this is what the article in this communist newspaper winds up with:
Perhaps someone has made a recording of this program as was done with the play "The Investigator" from the same network. It would be a smash hit.
Just commenting briefly on that recording of the program "The Investigator", the C.B.C. did it and made available the recordings of "The Investigator", another communist play. After it was played all over Canada, then it was made available to the communists, who were playing it all over Europe. The Canadian taxpayers' money made that available. It played right into the hands of the communists and their ideological warfare, helping the communists to mash the brains of the Canadian people with their propaganda. The worst part of it is that the people had to dig up the money out of their own pockets to pay for it.
It is time the minister looked into it to find out what it is all about. If he does not know now, let him get busy and try to find out and bring somebody to task. I say that this sort of thing, which is so welcomed by the communists the world over, is serious enough that the minister ought to track down who it was that made available the time and the facilities of the C.B.C. network to bring that drama to the Canadian people. He ought to fire him, and fire him soon; and not only that, but take steps to see that it does not happen again. What has he done? That is the question.
I was interested to note, too, about this same incident that occurred last October, that the Canadian Tribune, which is the official organ of the communist party in Canada, on October 10, soon after this extravaganza was played to the Canadian people, said in headlines, "Three Cheers for the C.B.C."

After much adulation of the C.B.C., the Tribune went on to say that it is keeping its ears open for similar programs on Canadian themes, and that those who think as it does about it should let the C.B.C. know. I suppose that if the C.B.C. got a few letters calling for more of the same kind of tripe, clever subversive propaganda against established institutions, the silly C.B.C. would say, "There is a substantial section of the Canadian public that wants it, and we are going to give it to them." .
I say you had better look inside the C.B.C. to find out those who are selling the Canadian people down the river. You are not doing it. I say to the Prime Minister and the colleagues of the minister here, who says he has no responsibility, that they ought to get someone who is going to take responsibility.
If we are going to continue to operate a government corporation and clothe it with the most extraordinary powers-powers that are so vast and so absolute that the chairman of the board of governors and his officials think they are omnipotent because they have all power, and they exercise it, believe me- then it seems to me that we have to have somebody in this parliament who is ready to stand up and say, "I have informed myself about this thing on behalf of the people; I have gone into it and have discovered that it cost X dollars. I believe that was not right and it should not have been done. We have tracked down the culprits who had infiltrated, doubtless communists themselves, into the system and had induced somebody to give them the facilities of the network."
That is the kind of thing we would have if we had a minister here who was interested and concerned. That is why I asked him, to begin with, these questions. Is he aware of the ideological warfare, the intensive warfare that is going on today? It is a question of survival, and unless we are wise to what is going on we shall not survive. Believe me, if the minister allows this sort of thing to go out over the C.B.C. the people of Canada can just as well point their finger at him and say that he is responsible for selling us down the river.
There is a substantial body of Canadian opinion that says, "We are going to retain our freedom. We are not going to compromise under any circumstances with this red stuff that is going around." The minister may not know it, but it is there, and I am stating a fact tonight.
It looks to me as if we are entitled to some intelligent answers instead of wisecracks from the minister. That sort of thing needs an answer and before I get through my questioning I want to know how much that program
Supply-Legislation
cost, who it was that sanctioned it, and why it was that, after much publicity was given to it in the press late last fall, the minister did not do something about it then.


John Horne Blackmore: He did not even find out about it.


Solon Earl Low: Those are the things we have to do. Since it is eleven o'clock I am going to give the minister a chance to get his C.B.C. people together and find out about it, so he can give us a report in the morning. In the meantime I should like to adjourn the debate.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the hon. member asking me to call it after ten o'clock?


Solon Earl Low: Yes.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall continue with these estimates, then take my own, and then the public works supplementaries, though it may be necessary to change that order, having in mind the time of some engagements I have.


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

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
The Speaker of the Senate-
198.	Allowance in lieu of residence. $3,000.
199.	General administration (including share of the former printing of parliament), $533,523.
House of Commons-
The Speaker of the House of Commons-
200.	Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000. Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons-
201.	Allowance in lieu of apartments, $1,500.
202. General administration-estimates of the clerk (including share of the former printing of parliament), $1,555,515.
203.	Estimates of the Sergeant-at-Arms, $715,836.
204.	Subscriptions to publications of the commonwealth parliamentary association to be distributed to members of the House of Commons, and to provide for the Canadian share of expenses of the commonwealth parliamentary association, $10,000.
205.	To provide hereby, notwithstanding anything contained in the Financial Administration Act or the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of parliament, for the payment out of the consolidated
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
revenue fund to each member of the House of Commons appointed by the governor in council to be a parliamentary assistant (which appointment shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as a member of the House of Commons) to assist a minister of the crown in such manner and to such extent as the minister may determine and to represent his department in the House of Commons in the absence of the minister therefrom, a salary of four thousand dollars per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year, $56,000.
206.	To provide for an allowance to the deputy chairman of committees, $2,000.
Library of Parliament-
207.	General administration, $311,121.
Pensions and other benefits-
208.	Pension to the unmarried sister of the late Colonel Harry Baker, M.P., $700.
The Senate-
646.	To provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act, for the payment to each member of the Senate who attended the first part of the third session of the twenty-second parliament, which commenced on January 10th, 1956, and ended on March 28th, 1956, of an amount representing the actual transportation and living expenses of such member while on the journey between Ottawa and his place of residence after the Easter adjournment of parliament on March 28, 1956, and on the return journey from his place of residence to Ottawa at the end of the recess which commenced on that date, or at any other one time during that session, $5,500.
House of Commons-
647.	To provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act, for the payment to each member of the House of Commons who attended the first part of the third session of the twenty-second parliament, which commenced on January 10, 1956, and ended on March 28, 1956, of an amount representing the actual transportation and living expenses of such member while on the journey between Ottawa and his place of residence after the Easter adjournment of parliament on March 28, 1956, and on the return journey from his place of residence to Ottawa at the end of the recess which commenced on that date, or at any other one time during the session, $20,000.
648.	Grant to the Canadian North Atlantic Treaty Organization Parliamentary Association, $10,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
166.	Departmental administration including annual contribution of $200 to the Conference of Commissioners on Uniformity of Legislation in Canada. $513,658.
167.	Remission service, including $30,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by the treasury board, $186,585.
Supreme Court of Canada-
168.	Administration, $174,938.
Exchequer Court of Canada-
169.	Administration, $90,670.
Northwest Territories territorial court-
170.	Administration, including administration of justice-
Northwest Territories, $81,260.
Yukon territorial court-
171.	Administration, including administration of justice-
Yukon Territory, $79,020.
172.	Payments of gratuities to the widows or other dependents of judges who die while in office, $20,000. Combines Investigation Act-
173.	Restrictive trade practices commission, $82,330.
174.	Office of investigation and research, $441,993.
175.	Bankruptcy Act administration, $46,290.
B-Penitentiaries-
176.	Administration of the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries, including $50,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by the treasury board, $420,953.
177.	Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries, including supplies and services relating thereto; administration, operation, repair and upkeep of buildings, works and equipment; maintenance, discharge and transfer of inmates; compensation to discharged inmates permanently disabled while in penitentiaries, $9,527,468.
178.	Construction, improvements and equipment, $1,566,222.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
396. Administration, operation and maintenance, $6,735,362.
Land and air services-
398.	Operation and maintenance of divisions, $24,677,749.
399. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $3,553,146.
Marine services-
400.	Operation and maintenance, $1,394,224.
401. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,153,760.
402.	Grant to the Canadian association of chiefs of police, $500.
403.	Grant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police veteran's association, $300.
Pensions and other benefits-
404.	Pensions to families of members of the Mounted Police who have lost their lives while on duty, as detailed in the estimates, $6,439.
405.	To authorize payment out of the consolidated revenue fund, during the current and subsequent fiscal years, of a pension to Basil Burke Currie, $685.
406.	Government's contribution to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension account, $889,881.
A-Department-
639.	Remission service-further amount required including authority to pay the members of the committee appointed to advise on principles and procedures relating to the remission service honoraria in such amounts as the treasury board determines but not exceeding in the aggregate $14,000, $26,595.
Exchequer Court of Canada-
640.	Administration-further amount required, $3,000.
Northwest Territories territorial court-
641.	Administration, including administration of justice-Northwest Territories-further amount required, $7,000.
Yukon territorial court-
642.	Administration, including administration of justice-Yukon Territory-further amount required, $5,500.

General-
643.	Expenses of the royal commissions on the law of insanity as a defence in criminal cases and on the criminal law relating to criminal sexual psychopaths, $15,000.
B-Penitentiaries-
644.	Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries, including supplies and services relating thereto; administration, operation, repair and upkeep of buildings, works and equipment; maintenance, discharge and transfer of inmates; compensation to discharged inmates permanently disabled while in penitentiaries-further amount required, $530,645.
645.	Construction, improvements and equipment -further amount required, $150,195.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Land and air services-
701.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $85,000.
Marine services-
702.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $202,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
703.	Government contribution to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension account-further amount required, $22,390.

[Stage Direction]
Protection branch-
140.	Operation and maintenance, $3,288,650.
141.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $285,950.
Inspection branch-
142.	Operation and maintenance, $1,138,470.
143.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $31,615.
Fish culture and development branch-
144.	Operation and maintenance, $852,525.
145.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $183,800.
146.	Consumer branch, $60,150.
147.	Fishermen's indemnity plan-administrative expenses, $208,240.
148.	To provide for the destruction of harbour and gray seals, $35,000.
Fisheries research board of Canada-
149.	Headquarters administration, $135,070.
150.	Operation and maintenance, including an amount of $59,500 for contributions towards fisheries research and for scholarships, $2,296,333.
151.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $688,805.
152.	To provide for federal share of administrative expenses of the Great Lakes fisheries research committee established jointly with the province of Ontario; and to provide for a programme designed to eliminate lampreys in the Great Lakes, $485,000.
International commissions-
153.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international fisheries commission appointed under treaty dated March 2, 1953, between Canada and the United States for the preservation of the north Pacific halibut fisheries, $101,800.
154.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission appointed under treaty dated May 26, 1930, between Canada and the United States for the protection, preservation and extension of the sock-eye salmon fisheries of the Fraser river system, $176,950.
Supply-Items Passed
155.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international whaling commission, appointed pursuant to the international convention for the regulation of whaling, dated at Washington, December 2, 1946, $2,500.
158.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international commission for the northwest Atlantic fisheries appointed pursuant to international conventions for the investigation, protection and conservation of the fisheries of the northwest Atlantic ocean, dated at Washington, February 8, 1949, $12,500.
157.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international north Pacific fisheries commission appointed pursuant to the international convention for the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean, dated May 9, 1952, $25,000.
Special-
158.	To provide for operation and maintenance of Newfoundland bait service, $274,800.
159.	To provide for the extension of educational work in co-operative producing and selling among fishermen, $80,000.
160.	To provide for administrative expenses of the fisheries prices support act, $74,740.
161.	To provide for assistance in the construction of vessels of the dragger and/or long liner type, subject to such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $200,000.
162.	To provide for assistance in the construction of bait freezing and storage facilities, subject to the regulations established by the governor in council, $30,000.
527. To extend the operation of the accounts established pursuant to vote 540 of the Appropriation Act No. 5. 1955, to authorize payments therefrom of refunds of premiums in the current and subsequent fiscal years in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $1.
627. Industrial development	service-further amount required, $478,000.
Field services-
Protection branch-
628.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,works,	land	and	equipment-further	amount
required, $20,860.
Inspection branch-
629.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,works,	land	and	equipment-further	amount
required, $146,420.
Fish culture and development branch-
630.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,works,	land	and	equipment-further	amount
required, $43,700.
Fisheries research board of Canada-
631.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $137,775.
632.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,works,	land	and	equipment-further	amount
required, $202,500.
International commissions-
633.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international great lakes fishery commission appointed pursuant to a convention on great lakes between Canada and the United States, dated at Washington, September 10, 1954, $18,500.
Special-
634.	To provide for operation and maintenance of Newfoundland bait service-further amount required, $25,000.
635.	To provide for a contribution towards the cost of a public aquarium at Vancouver, British Columbia, in accordance with an agreement entered
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
into by the Minister of Fisheries, with the approval of the governor in council, whereby adequate facilities are to be made available to the fisheries research board, the total cost to be borne in equal shares by the government of Canada, the government of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver (revote), $17,242.
636.	To provide, subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes, (a) for payment of assistance to producers of salted fish on products designated by the governor in council, in the amount of 50 per cent of the laid down cost of salt used in their 1956 production, and (b) for payment of assistance in respect of the 1955 production as specified in vote 795 of the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1955, but not previously paid, including authority to charge administrative costs to vote 160 of the main estimates, 1956-57, $582,000.
637.	To recoup the lobster trap indemnity account, established under vote 540 of the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1955, to cover the net losses incurred in the operation of the account during the fiscal years 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56, $57,680.
633. To provide, subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes, for the destruction of predator dogfish on the Pacific
coast at the rate of $10 a ton for whole (round) dogfish up to a total of 30,000 tons during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1957, $300,000.

[Stage Direction]
324.	Departmental administration, $1,596,132.
325. Operations-including salaries and other expenses of staff post office, district office, railway mail service staffs, and supplies, equipment and other items for revenue post offices, also including administration, $81,501,011.
326.	Transportation-movement of mail by land, air and water, including administration, $46,388,302.
327.	Financial services, including audit of revenue, money order and savings bank business; and postage stamps, $2,567,214.
528. To authorize the operation of a revolving fund in accordance with section 58 of The Financial Administration Act for the purpose of; (a) acquiring and managing material to be used in the manufacture of uniforms and satchels, and (b) acquiring and managing materials and fittings to be used in the manufacture of mail bags, the total amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed $895,000 of which $425,000 was provided under vote 541, Appropriation Act No. 4, 1954, and $270,000 under vote 543, Appropriation Act No. 5, 1955, $200,000.
670. Operations-further amount required, $713,800.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, August 14, 1956