1958-08-02

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the house that we have just been advised of new measures of relaxation on imports into Australia from Canada and other dollar countries and as a result, effective yesterday, imports into Australia from Canada of most capital equipment, electrical machine apparatus and appliances are now given equal access to the Australian market in competition with all other suppliers under the Australian import controls. Canadian exports of these products to Australia have been faced with discriminatory restrictions. With the removal of the discrimination in this field we are hopeful that Canadian exporters will be able to increase their shipments to Australia.
Total Canadian exports of the type of products affected amounted to some $40 million last year, of which about $1 million went to Australia. In addition, a number of items have been completely removed from import controls in Australia, including magnesium.
These new measures by Australia are a welcome move in the direction of improved access for Canadian exports to the Australian market, and should make an important contribution to a further strengthening of the trading relations between our two countries.



SALT FISH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. L. Morris (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether, subsequent to his announcement to the house yesterday concerning NAFEL, he has received any representations from the Canadian Atlantic salt fish exporters association requesting consideration of some provision for mainland Canadian dealers this year to engage in perhaps even limited interprovincial trade. If so, can he make any comment?
57071-3-1891


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, I have received a telegram from the Canadian Atlantic salt fish exporters association asking that a certain amount of limited interprovincial trade in dry and semi-dry salt fish might be permitted with the Newfoundland organization. This had been made known to us prior to this date, and the interest and representations of the Nova Scotia fishing industry have been given very careful consideration.
When I announced the termination of the exclusive right of NAFEL yesterday, to take effect a year from July 31, I was not able to accede to the request of the Canadian Atlantic salt fish exporters association for the concession they wanted on this occasion-they received a concession in 1954-with regard to some of the products from Newfoundland, and we are prepared to give further consideration to their suggestion.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gaie):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since his announcement yesterday has the minister received any representations from NAFEL?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, not to this moment, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Hon. Henri Courtemanche (Secreiary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to announce the publication of a new manual or a guide entitled "Organization of the Government of Canada", or in French "L'Administration federale du Canada". It contains detailed information on the organization of the federal government, including lists of members of the cabinet, the Senate and the House of Commons, judges and officials of the supreme and exchequer courts of Canada and of the territorial courts of the Yukon and Northwest Territories and top officials of the various departments, boards and agencies of the public service.
Numerous inquiries and requests received during the last few years by the queen's printer from the public, particularly businessmen, university professors and students, have indicated the need for a publication of this kind, where can be found information which

The Budget-Economic Forecasts is incomplete or difficult to find in other government publications. I venture to say that it is expected to be quite useful to government officials as well as to the public.
The project was first studied and recommended by an interdepartmental committee established by the previous administration, which comprised representatives of the departments of the Secretary of State and of Public Printing and Stationery and the privy council office, the treasury board office and the public archives. After authority for it was given by the cabinet of the day, editing and revision of the text were entrusted to a committee of representatives of the Department of the Secretary of State, the Department of Justice and the privy council office. Incidentally, considerable revision became necessary twice in the course of the preparation and proof-printing as a result of the last two general elections.
There is a bilingual edition for free distribution to those entitled thereto under the regulations governing distribution of government publications, and separate English and French editions for sale to the public. I might add that the queen's printer already has approximately 1,000 orders for this publication, which he is now starting to fill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the government upon carrying out this excellent project which, I say without modesty, I had the pleasure of getting started when I was secretary of state. I hope, Mr. Speaker, this does not mean that this publication is going to supplant the Parliamentary Guide, which I recognize is a private publication but which I believe was always assisted by the government and that it will not be too long before the Parliamentary Guide, which of course never appeared at all for the last parliament, will appear again.*



FINANCE


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West, the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the discrepancies between the economic forecasts made by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, and the forecasts made to the government by its economic advisers as outlined in the recently partially disclosed report "The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1958" and the
[Mr. Courtemanche.l
need for the immediate full disclosure of the contents of this report.


Mr. Speaker:: It is moved by Mr. Argue, seconded by Mr. Herridge-the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Hazen Robert Argue: We have moved this motion for the adjournment of the house, Mr. Speaker, because we have seen in the Toronto Star disclosure of the report on Canada's economic outlook which has been provided to the government by its officials.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I took it that you would be reading the terms of the motion to the house, but you called on the hon. member for Assiniboia. Was that only for the purpose of permitting him to indicate to you what his views are relating to the point of urgency of debate?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. The hon. member simply moved his motion, and I think he should indicate why he feels it is an urgent matter. I would also be glad to hear other members as to the urgency of the matter, which is the important issue at the moment. I would ask the hon. member not to proceed with the motion but to confine himself to the question of whether the house should entertain the matter at this time.


Hazen Robert Argue: I feel that this matter is urgent because disclosure has just been made, and this is the first opportunity we have had to ask for a full debate on the question. The reason we ask for a full debate is our belief, after having heard the budget statement of the Minister of Finance and after having read extracts from the report in the Toronto Star of yesterday, that the house and the people of Canada have been misled by the forecasts of the Minister of Finance. They have been misled by his forecast that inflationary pressures are no longer of great importance, as found on page 1234 of Hansard of June 17, and his forecast of an increase of 2 per cent in the gross national product.
Because of these great discrepancies we feel that the house is entitled to an explanation from the government at this time with respect to why these forecasts were not based on the report, and why these forecasts vary so greatly from the advice given the government by its economic experts. We believe this secret document, which has been referred to in the house so often, should now be disclosed immediately because it has already appeared in the press, and because of the well known attitude of the Prime Minister in the past toward the disclosure of such reports.
We believe there is a question of privilege involved affecting the House of Commons.
(See further remarks at page 3454.)

Parliament has been refused this report, yet we see it published in a newspaper.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I take it that you are passing at the moment on the question of whether there is urgency of debate as applied to this matter within the rules and practice of this house. My hon. friend is asking you to regard this as a definite matter of urgent public importance requiring debate at this particular time. In my respectful submission, Mr. Speaker, the motion not only does not fall within the accepted requirements in relation to such a motion but falls very far short of them.
If my hon. friend wishes to introduce this matter into the discussions of the house he will have an opportunity to do so only two days from now, because a supply motion is to be moved on Monday and any hon. member who regards this as a matter meriting the attention of the house will have full opportunity, I take it, to introduce it, if in order, on that motion.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is another question which applies to the motion here. The hon. member for Assiniboia seems to be leading up to the point, certainly it was evident in his remarks this morning, of alleging that a certain report which the government received from its advisers should be placed before the house. You, Mr. Speaker, have already had that same question before you and it is standing on the order paper at the present time. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate brought in such a motion about one month ago calling for the production of the same document.
When the discussion opened on that motion for production you ruled that it was not open to debate. Then, following further discussion on the point of order, you ruled that the motion could not be pressed at that point to a vote, and the mover of the motion asked that it be transferred to "Notices of Motions". There it stands now, and will stand until it is reached in the ordinary course. It is to be found on page 16 of today's order paper, item No. 46:
June 18-Mr. Pickersgill-That an order of the house do issue for a copy of "The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1958" as prepared by the Department of Trade and Commerce.
It is evidently the same document that the hon. member for Assiniboia is asking to have produced today. It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, in view of the previous proceedings in this house with regard to the same matter and the fact that the question is pending before the house on the order paper, that the motion is out of order on that ground.
There is one further observation I should like to make without trespassing into the
The Budget-Economic Forecasts realm of the merits of the issue which the hon. member for Assiniboia is seeking to raise. It seems to be implicit in his argument that this is a matter of urgent public importance, that there is some obligation upon the government in relation to advice of certain kinds that it receives from certain officials.
Let me make it quite clear that whatever use the government makes of advice from whatever source, whether advisers within the government or without, the government takes the responsibility for the views it puts before the house; and the government has taken responsibility, and full responsibility, for the views upon which the budget was based when it was introduced in this house on June 17.
Let there be no question about that. The government is not under any obligation to follow the views of any particular official or any particular adviser-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and certainly it will take responsibility for the advice that it chooses to accept and follow. I may say in this respect, Mr. Speaker, that the government chooses sound advice, and-and let me put full emphasis on this-up to the minute advice when it submits the budget to the house. The same is true in relation to all the economic questions that enter into the basis of that budget.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: The closing remarks of the Minister of Finance with regard to the responsibility of the government in this matter, Mr. Speaker, make interesting reading in relation to the remarks of his leader last January in connection with the report from the same department in the previous year and the obligations of the government in respect of that report. However, that is not the question we are debating at the moment; it is the urgency and importance of this particular matter.
There is, I believe, no question about the importance of this matter, because an economic analysis was given by the Minister of Finance when he introduced his budget, and he based his calculations on certain statistics. Those have now, in part at least, been rejected by a government report which has, in part, been made public. Quotations from that report have appeared in the press, and they deny the validity of some of the minister's own calculations in the production of his budget. Nothing could be much more important than that.
Perhaps also it is a matter of urgency to correct any misunderstandings which may have been created in the public mind by the inconsistency between these two reports.

The Budget-Economic Forecasts Surely it is urgent that this matter should be cleared up. However, Mr. Speaker, if you decide that the urgency is not such as to require a debate at this moment, then surely the urgency for making this report public now has been abundantly demonstrated.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the matter that is sought to be brought before the house is not the production of "The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1958", although the last clause in the motion rather indicates that that is sought. There is on the order paper a motion with respect to that report. I shall deal with this motion as a motion to discuss as a matter of definite urgent public importance the discrepancies between the economic forecast made by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech and the forecast made to the government by its economic advisers in "The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1958", as outlined in the recently partially disclosed alleged extract from this report.
As the Leader of the Opposition says, there is no doubt that the economic forecast of the Minister of Finance is a matter of great public importance. However, I think the house must bear in mind, as was pointed out by the Minister of Finance, that it will have an opportunity on Monday, when a supply motion is to be moved, to make a motion relating to any matter that has not yet been decided by the house. On that account I think the urgency would have to be of such an extreme nature that it could not wait over the week end.
In this motion there does not appear to be anything of that kind. In fact it seems doubtful that the motion itself is the kind that can be introduced under rule 26, because it attempts to deal with opinions. The Minister of Finance makes a forecast, which is a matter of opinion. There is a report by the economic advisers, which is another matter of opinion. If the conflict of opinions is the sort of urgent matter which the house must debate immediately and suspend all its other business until it does so, it seems to me that we would get into hopeless confusion.
I therefore cannot accept this motion as a proper one under rule 26.


Lester Bowles Pearson: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question with a view to clarification. Would the presence on the order paper of the motion which is in the name of my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and which deals with this subject preclude a motion being introduced on Monday on supply, dealing with it also?


Mr. Speaker:: I did make that ruling. I am now departing from sound practice in answering a question of the Leader of the Opposition. As I did make the statement that these matters could be dealt with, I wish to justify it. I feel that on the supply motion there could be raised the question of the forecast, which of course is properly debatable on the budget motion, in so far as it has not been precluded by some decision of the house. Until the question arises I prefer not to rule on the question of how far the house is precluded from dealing with the existing motion with respect to this report. However, I might make this point. In dealing with it I think I should be guided by the prospect of the motion on the order paper ever being reached. That is a relevant factor.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, on the point as to whether the motion on the order paper-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not inclined to hear more argument. We are really getting off the track. I have disposed of the motion which the hon. member for Assiniboia has moved, and there is nothing else before the house at the moment.



PUBLICATION OF ALLEGED EXTRACTS FROM &quot;CANADIAN ECONOMIC OUTLOOK FOR 1958&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and ask him whether his attention has been drawn to the publication of excerpts from a report of his department, "Canada's Economic Outlook for 1958" which deny many of the optimistic assumptions on which the Minister of Finance based his budget. If so, can he say whether these excerpts are accurate?


Gordon Minto Churchill: My attention has been drawn to a report in the Toronto Star in regard to what the headline calls a secret report. I have made no further examination of the alleged excerpts quoted in the Star, as to whether or not they are from some secret report of the department.



PRIVILEGE


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I feel affects all members of this house. We are aware that for some weeks now an effort has been made by certain members of the opposition to have disclosed to this house "The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1958". That has not been done; but in spite of the

fact that this report has not been made available to the house, we find what are purported to be very pertinent extracts from the 1958 report contained in the Toronto Daily Star.
We are raising this matter at this time because we feel that this matter affects the privileges of every member of this house. If such report has been disclosed in some other way than to the house, we feel it should be immediately tabled in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: May I remind the hon. member who raises this question as a matter of privilege that the house has never made any decision with respect to the report known as "The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1958". A motion did come before the house which was not voted upon and at the request of hon. members it was referred to the heading "Notices of Motions" so that it could be debated.
When the hon. member began to speak I thought his point of privilege was that the government had refused to produce this document to the house but had otherwise allowed it to be made public. That is not in accordance with the facts, because the house has not ordered the production of this document. It came before the house on a motion for return of which the house has not yet disposed, so the premise upon which the hon. member bases his matter of privilege seems to be wrong.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, surely-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: On the matter of privilege, surely, sir, you will reconsider what you have said. This is a matter which has been raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia and it is an issue which has been raised in this house on many occasions. The document in question is one which the government refused to file in this house because it was a secret and confidential document, but now we see in the press allegedly complete excerpts from that document. When an hon. member of this house sees in the press excerpts from a document which has been denied to this house then certainly, sir, it is not only a matter of privilege, but if the facts are correct it is an insult to the hon. members of this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest possible respect-


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I say-


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister.
Report on Canadian Economic Outlook.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate should sit down.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the hon. member for Vancouver East answered himself when he said there were "alleged excerpts in the press".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: If on every occasion alleged excerpts in the press were made the basis upon which privilege could be raised in this house, privilege would be an almost daily occurrence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When I was interrupted by the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I gave the floor to the Prime Minister on the well established rule of debate that it is better to have contending views expressed alternately.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, I rose because of the fact that I have to leave the house at 11.30 in order to meet Princess Margaret. That is the reason I rose, so as to answer the argument, and at the same time not be late for a responsibility which happens to fall upon me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can assure the Prime Minister that I do not object to being interrupted by him at any time. When I rose I was about to point out to Your Honour with great respect that although it is quite true that the motion standing in my name is still on the order paper, and therefore the house has made no decision on it, at the same time the Prime Minister, in his statement at the time the motion was called, indicated very clearly that the government was refusing to produce this document, and it was because a debate was desired on the refusal of the government that this matter arose.
It appears to me that since this document, or large sections of it, have appeared in the press, although the Prime Minister used the words "alleged extracts"-


John George Diefenbaker: I took the words from the last hon. gentleman who spoke.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -I think the Minister of Finance indicated quite clearly by his previous intervention that the alleged extracts were, in fact, actual extracts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did no such thing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe I have the floor. It seems to me that since the government through the mouth of the Minister of Finance has admitted that part of this document has been published, surely now the house is entitled to the whole document forthwith.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Methuen Fleming: In view of the last and utterly erroneous statement by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, let me make it clear that I have not said there has been any disclosure, or that what has appeared in the newspaper is taken from the report, or anything else. I have made no such statement, and I do not intend to have statements like that put into my mouth by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the minister if they are or if they are not?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I have not made a point of reviewing all the conjectures that appear in the Toronto Daily Star. That would be a full time job.


Mr. Speaker:: While the question of whether the privileges of the house have been infringed is a matter for the house itself to decide, I have to take the responsibility of saying whether or not there is a prima facie case. I have already indicated my view; and in reply to the argument by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, he made an assumption that if the house ordered the production of the document the government would refuse it. I do not think that is an assumption which can properly be made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: With great respect, that was not my contention.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the hon. member to ask me to accept the Prime Minister's statement that the document was a confidential one and that therefore the government did not consider it should be asked to produce it, as a contravention of something the house has decided. But the house has made no decision in this matter. The hon. gentleman is also making an assumption that if the house decided to order the production of this document the government would not produce it. I have given a good deal of latitude in the discussion of this question, I think, and we might now consider the matter to be closed.



MR. MARTIN (TIMMINS)    REFERENCE TO REMARKS IN DEBATE ON AUGUST 1

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['While I will take this as notice, I give the tentative answer that I have no knowledge of any such communication coming to my department.']
Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It has to do with remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia. I hesitated to raise it yesterday because I wanted to make quite sure of the wording of his remarks so I should not do an injustice to the hon. member. I say further that these remarks were not made in the heat of debate; they were made in his opening statement,

and consequently must be considered to be premeditated and carefully thought out. I refer to the words on page 2980 of Hansard, which read as follows:
It is not many years ago, Mr. Speaker, since the group to your left advocated that all the rich should be shot and everybody with a buck should be machine-gunned.
As a member of the group to your left, sir, I feel that this is a reflection on my character, and certainly it is untrue. It is something I have never advocated, and furthermore I have never heard it advocated by any member of my party, certainly not by this group to your left. I think the words should be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether the hon. member read the rest of the remarks in Hansard, but that matter was dealt with fully yesterday and I think he will find, if he reads the rest of the report, how it was dealt with. There was a point of order as to whether the member was contravening the rules of debate, and it was dealt with. There was no reference to the hon. member for Timmins which would make it possible for him to raise the matter on the basis that he was not here yesterday and had not the opportunity.


Murdo William Martin: I was here.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the hon. member should have dealt with it. The phrase "the group to your left" could have referred to another group farther down and another group still farther down. In the context I do not think it did. As I explained yesterday, with respect to general allegations, unless they are brought home to individuals, members should not look for offence to themselves. I have acted on that principle.


Lester Bowles Pearson: With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I say we are not a group to your left; we are a party to your left.


Mr. Speaker:: I was referring to the group beyond the hon. member.


Mr. Pallell:: Mr. Speaker, I have waited many a day so I could say, "speaking for this group". I assume when you say "beyond the Leader of the Opposition" you are looking from this point on.


Mr. Herridge:: As one who is implicated in this charge I do want to say it is completely untrue. I have never murdered anybody. Speaking seriously, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the member was most unfair to make such a suggestion, and in fairness to the house in general he should apologize to this group.


Mr. Green:: On a point of order, this whole question was dealt with yesterday at considerable length during the debate, and that should have closed it. Now my hon. friends of the C.C.F. come back this morning and make a second attempt to have the statement withdrawn. If they can do that a second time they can do it 10 times. I suggest it is out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are all kinds of precedents for it.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister is quite correct. I hope hon. members in the group to my left will govern themselves accordingly.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, let me say one word.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; the point has been taken that this matter was dealt with fully, and if the hon. member wishes to speak on it I must tell him that he is out of order. If he wants to speak about something else he has the floor.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I wanted to direct a question to the Prime Minister, but perhaps in his absence the Secretary of State for External Affairs might be able to deal with it. If not it could be taken as notice. I realize that the Prime Minister is not able to be here.
Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs or any other member of the government received an appeal from Canadians of Polish descent through the Canadian Polish congress that the Canadian government should protest to the Polish government concerning the violation by their police of the holy Catholic shrine at the monastery of Czestochowa? If so, what action does the government propose to take?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: While I will take this as notice, I give the tentative answer that I have no knowledge of any such communication coming to my department.



LEBANON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs would comment on the report in this morning's press that the United States has landed further powerful armoured reinforcements in Lebanon. Can the minister 57071-3-190
Inquiries of the Ministry assure the house that Canada takes the position that there should be no further build-up of military forces in the Middle East while current energetic and fruitful negotiations are proceeding?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have only the information that is available to the hon. member with respect to additional landings of United States troops in Lebanon. I have no official word with respect to that matter, and I have no comment to make about it.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the general question, I wonder whether the minister can say that it is Canada's position that there should be no further build-up of military forces in the Middle East at this time while current energetic and, I think, fruitful negotiations are taking place within the framework of the United Nations?


Sidney Earle Smith: I answered the question, and I rely on my answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on this point would the minister attempt to secure information as to the nature of these reinforcements, because it is important that we should know. If it is a matter of replacement or some additional housekeeping troops that is one thing; but if, as the press indicates, it is a matter of new armoured troops that is something else. Perhaps the minister would be able to find that out.


Sidney Earle Smith: I am happy to assure the house that I have anticipated the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to answer the question which was addressed to me on Wednesday, July 30, by the hon. member for Lambton West dealing with water diversion at Chicago. My answer to his question, which was directed to three main points, is as follows:
1.	The position taken by Canada with respect to a proposed additional diversion of
1,000	cubic feet per second from lake Michigan at Chicago is set forth in an aide memoire dated January 6, 1958. As the document is somewhat long, I ask leave to have it printed as an annex to Hansard.

Inquiries of the Ministry
2.	To the extent that any additional diversion of water may take place at Chicago, the level of the lower lakes and connecting channels will be reduced as far as Montreal, and there will be a corresponding reduction in the availability of water for hydroelectric generation at Niagara, Barnhart and Beauharnois. The effect, however, varies at different places and at different times over a period of years. I should be pleased to arrange for the hon. member to consult tables and graphs in order to determine precisely what effect a particular diversion would have at a specific time in a specific place.
3.	Principles applicable to a diversion from lake Michigan would not necessarily apply to boundary waters, as lake Michigan is not a boundary water.
[For text of document above referred to, see appendix, page 3041.]



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Skeena asked the following question:
In view of the fact that the C.P.H. has sold its ship Queen of the North, will the minister indicate what is the position of the C.P.R. and of Northland Navigation Limited, the purchaser of the ship, with respect to the subvention which originally was being paid to the C.P.R. for certain up-coast runs?
Mr. Speaker, this matter is under consideration at the present time, and as soon as a decision is reached it will be communicated to the house.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wonder if the minister could indicate how long it will be before the decision is reached.


George Harris Hees: I expect it will be possible to make an announcement within the next week or so.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to that genial tranquillizer of public fears, doubts and suspicions, the Minister of National Revenue.
Would the minister inform the house if there is any truth in press reports and current rumour to the effect that Mr. J. George Johnston, publisher of The Printed Word, has
[Mr. Smith (Hastings-Frontenac) .1
been offered the position of chairman of a board to regulate both the C.B.C. and private radio and television in Canada?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Hull asked me a question to which I undertook to get an answer. The answer is yes.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the leader of the house to give us the assurance, if he can, now that we are in the month of August and would normally soon be bringing our work to a conclusion, that all the legislation the government contemplates introducing at this session will be on the order paper by, say, Monday.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, no doubt this will be dealt with during the debate on the motion which appears in Votes and Proceedings today, dealing with the change in the sitting hours of the house. I cannot give the Leader of the Opposition the assurance that all the legislation will be on the order paper by Monday. Most of it is already on, but there is a measure dealing with broadcasting which will not be ready on Monday. There may be others, but that one would certainly not be ready.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On that point, may I ask the minister whether he does not realize our difficulty in deciding on the attitude we should take toward the measure to be debated Monday if we do not know what the legislation is that is to be introduced.


Howard Charles Green: During the course of another debate some weeks ago dealing with the sittings of the house the Prime Minister gave an outline of the legislation which was to be brought down. If the Leader of the Opposition will refer to that debate he will find that the statement covers the situation.


Harold Edward Winch: Everything named in the throne speech, he said.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR RESUMPTION OF PROGRAM "THE nation's BUSINESS"
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue, now that more than three months have elapsed since the general election, if he can find out from the C.B.C. whether they have any intention of resuming the program "The Nation's Business" on radio and television, which was broadcast in previous years?


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will make inquiry concerning that matter. I had the impression it was being carried on the radio, but I have not been listening to the radio very much recently and had not noticed that it had been dropped.

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



DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
War veterans allowances and other benefits-
483. War veterans allowances, $58,066,500.
Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that this is the exact place to ask this question, but perhaps it is as good as any other. Can the minister tell the house what advantage is now being taken of the educational courses that used to be supplied by the Legion?


Mr. Brooks:: If I understood the hon. member correctly he wanted to know about the educational support supplied by the Legion?


Chesley William Carter: No. At one time the Canadian Legion had a whole set of educational correspondence courses for members of the armed services, and I think they have been carried on under the minister's department for a number of years.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I might advise the hon. member that we are still carrying on the work that was started by the Canadian Legion.


Chesley William Carter: Do you know how many people are actually taking advantage of these courses? The item can be carried; I can get the answer some other time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The total number of veterans registered and taking correspondence courses in 1957-58 was 4,934.


Mr. Robichaud:: Can the minister give the committee the total number of veterans who have benefited from the amendment made
57071-3-1904
Supply-Veterans Affairs last January or February? I refer to the amendment whereby world war I veterans would qualify for war veterans allowance after having served a certain period overseas. How many applications have been approved since then, and what is the total annual cost?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am sorry, but we do not have that information. We will get it for the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
485. Treatment and other allowances, $2,400,000.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the question I wish to ask under this item should have been asked under item 476 but we are making such progress that we were beyond item 476 before I could get my book open. However, I think it is appropriate under item 485.
Has the minister any discretion with regard to the admission to veterans hospitals of persons who may not be technically qualified as veterans, but who for a special purpose desire to enter these hospitals for special treatment which they cannot get so easily elsewhere, who are willing to pay all expenses incurred and who, though not technically veterans, may have made an important contribution to war service during wartime? Has he any discretion in regard to the application of the act in that respect?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The Leader of the Opposition has indicated that the people of whom he is speaking are definitely not veterans. With respect to those other than veterans it is only in the case of an emergency that the minister has discretion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He has discretion in a case of emergency but in no other?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
492. To provide for the cost of administration of Veterans' Land Act; Soldier Settlement and British Family Settlement, $5,249,350.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to make a few brief remarks with regard to policy under this item because, while we had ample opportunity to question the director of the Veterans' Land Act administration when considering the estimates in the standing committee naturally of course we have to deal with any change of policy in the house. I wish to bring up again the old hardy perennial that I have brought before the house quite a number of times and with regard to which the minister was kind enough to support me on two or three occasions in years past. I refer to the necessity for a reduction of the acreage to a quarter of an acre for small holdings under the Veterans' Land Act.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
The matter is of primary concern to a number of veterans I have the honour to represent owing to the nature of the country and the difficulty in obtaining the acreage required under the present regulations. Before proceeding, I may say that I find that the vast majority of veterans prefer to operate under the Veterans' Land Act administration rather than under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The day they are transferred from the shepherding of the Veterans' Land Act administration to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is a sad day for them. There is a somewhat different approach to these problems on the part of the two organizations. I think that is understandable in view of the fact that the V.L.A. staff are all veterans and understand the particular problems veterans have, their psychology and their approach to things in general.
I mention the matter again at the request of a good number of veterans in my constituency and branches of the Canadian Legion. In view of the representations made in the house and in view of the minister's sympathy for our approach to this question in years past, I would ask the minister whether the government has given consideration to a reduction of the acreage for small holdings to about a quarter of an acre where the particular circumstances in any area indicate that this is desirable.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to the attention of the house. I might advise him that it is receiving very careful consideration. We are studying the Veterans' Land Act in the department and it is our opinion that the act, being one of the most important pieces of veterans legislation, should receive study next year by the veterans affairs committee.
I think it will be realized that there are a number of amendments that could be made. The hon. member for Kootenay West will have an opportunity to present his views when this measure is under study next year. I assure him that we intend to make a very thorough study of the Veterans' Land Act next year in the veterans affairs committee. It is one of the first acts I intend to bring before it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I hope I am there to deny some of the pessimistic views that have been expressed by some of the officials with regard to the life expectancy of veterans of the first world war.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I take advantage of this item to pay my tribute, on behalf of this

party, to the effective, intelligent and understanding way in which this act is being administered, and especially to the works of the administration.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his remarks. At the same time I should like also to thank the hon. member for Kootenay West, who in his remarks last night paid tribute not only to those who administer the Veterans' Land Act but to the officials who are administering all the different branches of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I appreciate those remarks, and I want to say that I personally feel they were well deserved.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
494. To provide for the payment of grants to veterans settled on provincial lands in accordance with agreements with provincial governments under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act and payment of grants to veterans settled on dominion lands, in accordance with an agreement with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act, $215,000.
Mr. Winkler:: I should like to speak very briefly on item No. 494 with regard to the Veterans' Land Act and the advisability of raising the ceiling on loans made under that act. I was happy to hear the minister say that this act would be brought up for consideration and amendment next session. I feel it would be wise, however, to give the committee certain information on this particular point.
As hon. members no doubt know, the ceiling for loans under the Veterans' Land Act has been set at $9,000, whereas in the case of the farm loan board it has been set at $15,000. Since the inception of the Veterans' Land Act there has been a total of something in the neighbourhood of $370 million in circulation, and at the present date there is a little more than $201 million in circulation. This is being repaid at the rate of $20,355,000 a year. There is a very negligible amount of money, $11,300, outstanding in principal and interest for more than a three-year period, and about $8,000 of this is in the province of Saskatchewan. I might add also that the province of Saskatchewan has a higher rate of cash repayment.
Because of the very low figure, and the efficiency of the program in the farming industry, I should like to ask the minister to take into consideration the advisability of raising the ceiling on loans under this act. I believe it is not necessary for me to mention a figure, because I am not one to judge the cost of establishing farms. I imagine that a sum in the neighbourhood of $20,000 would be a reasonable limit in view of the current cost of establishment. I noticed that according

to the Canadian farm loan board the demand for money today is 306 per cent greater than at the time of the inception of that board. I would ask the minister to give this matter serious consideration in the future.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I want to thank the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, Mr. Chairman, for his suggestion. I am very happy to be able to advise him that we have already prepared considerable material in the department on this very subject matter. As a matter of fact the material we have prepared is being studied not only by the Department of Agriculture but also by the Department of Finance in relation to the farm loan act. This is a matter which will be thoroughly discussed, I may tell the hon. member, in the veterans affairs committee when we have the Veterans' Land Act before that committee next year. I hope the hon. member will be a member of that committee next year as he has been this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
498.	Veterans benefits, including assistance and training of certain pensioners under regulations approved by the Governor in Council, $1,050,000.
Mr. Caron:: Has there been any increase in the gratuities given to world war I veterans? At the time they were treated according to the standards of the day following the first world war, and have those gratuities been increased since?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am sorry, I did not catch the hon. member's question?


Alexis Pierre Caron: The gratuities which were given to the soldiers in world war I; I think at the time they were calculated on the cost of living after the first war, and have they been increased since?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No, the gratuities have not been increased. Of course the gratuities given at the end of the first war were moneys given to help re-establish the veterans. The value of the gratuity at that time was, of course, 100 per cent, and there would be no reason for increasing it now because these veterans have been reestablished for a good many years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
499. To provide for the repayment in such amounts as the Minister of Veterans Affairs determines, not exceeding the whole of an amount equivalent to the compensating adjustment made under subsection (1) of section 13 of the War Service Grants Act or the payment made pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section 12 of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, where the person who made the compensating adjustment or payment does not receive benefits under the Veterans' Land Act or where, having had financial assistance under that act, he is deemed by the
Supply-Veterans Affairs minister on termination of his contract or agreement under that act to have derived thereunder either no benefit or a benefit that is less than the amount of the compensating adjustment or payment made, $250,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just want to say a word or two on this item. I do not know whether or not I am strictly in order. I intended to say this on the administration item but it slipped my mind. In the committee we heard representations with respect to the merchant seamen. Mr. Heide suggested certain improvements concerning pensions, requested burnt-out pensions, dealt with medical boards and the extension of the Veterans' Land Act to certain seamen, and so on.
As a long-time member of the committee I realize all the complications and difficulties in doing justice to those within this group who should receive some consideration. I am primarily concerned with the individuals who may suffer some injustice at the present time because of the failure of the legislation to properly give them the protection or compensation they should have. We heard these representations from Mr. Heide, and I believe the departmental officials are going to secure some further information so we will have the representations of Mr. Heide and the information from the department to study.
I trust that at the next session the standing committee will have an opportunity to go into this matter thoroughly. I fully appreciate that the question is most complicated and difficult. In addition, although the Canadian corps of firefighters have not made representations as a body, I know that individual units or locals have written to various members in this house. Therefore I trust that at the next session the standing committee will have an opportunity to hear any representations that organization wishes to make.
Now, before I take my seat, I want to remedy an oversight on my part. In my hurry last night I forgot to express the appreciation of this group for the admirable way in which the chairman of the standing committee on veterans affairs performed his duties. We thought he was most fair in dealing with the questions that came up, and I simply want to say that so people will know that when we appreciate the way things are handled we say so, as we are not backward in saying when we think things are handled badly.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member realizes that this is not a new subject. It has been considered in veterans affairs committees for quite a number of years, ever since the second world war as a matter of fact.
3014	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs
I know he will agree with me that it has always received very sympathetic study from all members of the committee from all parties and at all times. He will recall that there was quite a stand taken, right after the war to have the merchant marine considered as a fourth arm of the service, as it were. This was not done but it concerned, I think, the Department of National Defence more than it does the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Everyone realizes the great work that was done by the merchant marine during the war. The casualties were heavy. The men were in constant danger. We all remember the trips they took to Murmansk and across the various oceans and the seven seas constantly threatened by submarines. However, what applies to the Canadian merchant marine applied also to the merchant marine of all the allied forces. I might say that none of the nations-including Great Britain, France, Australia, the United States, Italy and others -ever accepted the merchant marine as a fourth arm of the service. I think that is correct. It has not been done in Canada either.
There were a good many advantages given to the merchant marine under the war pensions act. I should like to read to the committee just some of the benefits which were granted to the merchant marine after the last war.
1.	Any seaman eligible for either the war service bonus or the special bonus was also eligible for railway fare from port to final discharge in Canada to the permanent residence of the seaman in Canada.
2.	Pensions were awarded on a scale approximating the rate in the pensions act, and were granted for death or disability suffered as a result of enemy action or counteraction. Payments are authorized under the provisions of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act and include payment to widows and dependents of seamen killed in enemy action.
3.	Full benefits under the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act were granted.
4.	Treatment was provided for non-pensionable disabilities incurred in service at sea for a period of 18 months if evidenced within 12 months of termination of service.
5.	Compensation with pay for loss of effects and wages and payment of special bonus was continued if in enemy prison.
6.	If pensionable, treatment is provided for pensionable disabilities including hospital allowance.
7.	If pensionable, benefits under the Veterans' Land Act were available.
[Mr. Brooks.l

8.	Benefits of the Veterans Insurance Act are available to any seaman eligible for either war service bonus or special bonus.
9.	The Unemployment Insurance Act was made applicable to merchant seamen to whom the war service bonus or special bonus are payable.
There were other benefits requested and, as the hon. member mentioned, the officials of my department are meeting the veterans affairs committee and this matter is going to be discussed at the next meeting of that committee.
While I am on my feet may I say this. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo made some remarks the other night and asked some questions with reference to the War Veterans' Allowance Act, or at least with reference to making Great Britain a theatre of war for the first war. He wanted to know why it was that a period of 365 days was required. It is not necessary for me to tell the house the history of the War Veterans' Allowance Act but I might mention a few facts.
It was granted first on the recommendation of some very prominent men in the Legion and in public life in Canada and in parliament. The basis for the recommendation was the fact that the men who served in the front line trenches-and these men had been visited by those who made the recommendation-put up with the privations which they had to encounter there. Those who were in the front line in the first war know that not only were the Germans a few yards away but that there were the lice, the rats and the mud to be contended with.
I think this was first mentioned in Saint John at a meeting of the dominion command of the Canadian Legion. I believe Dr. Mac-Laren who was a former minister of pensions and national health was one of those who made the following suggestion, and Senator Power who was also at the meeting supported it. It was suggested that the terrible hardships which these men had to undergo in the first world war must have shortened their life possibly to the extent of 10 years.
That is the basis, Mr. Chairman, for providing war veterans allowances for men of the first war. It has been extended since. It was extended to dual veterans, men who had served in two world wars. It was extended to take in all men who had served in England, just recently by our amendment, except those who had not been there for 365 days.
I might give the basis for the 365 days. As to the men who landed in England in the early part of the war, many of them were well-experienced men and they were needed to drill troops and for administration purposes. They also had to put up with many

privations. We all read of the winter they spent on Salisbury Plain and know that the accommodation was not good. We also know that these men were away from their families and their homes for three and four years, whereas the men who only served for a short time and came to England-many of them, I know from reading their applications, some thousands of them-came just a few months before the war ended.
These men are not considered, and I do not think that anyone can so consider them, in the same category as the men I have just mentioned. They were home. Many of them received good wages in factories and so on. They came just at the end of the war.
In his argument last night my hon. friend said they sailed across the Atlantic ocean, and anybody who sailed across the Atlantic ocean was in great danger. I hope my hon. friend will never mention that argument before a group of these old soldiers I spoke of a few moments ago who served in the trenches amid the mud, lice, rats and so on with the Germans in front of them.
Mind you, if the late arrivals had suffered I would be the first one to ask that they receive this benefit. But in the latter part of the war the Atlantic ocean was not too dangerous to cross. The German navy had been destroyed. There were very few U-boats. There was no great danger in going across the Atlantic ocean in 1918, just before the war ended. As a matter of fact those who took that trip stayed a few months in England and came back again. It would certainly take some stretch of the imagination to make me or any of the members of the veterans organizations across this country believe that the lives of those men had been reduced by 10 years or 10 months or even by 10 days.
That, Mr. Chairman and hon. members, is my opinion and I think it is the opinion of most of the veterans across this country, namely that there is no necessity for extending the war veterans allowance benefits any further than we have extended them, namely to the extent of 365 days in England.
The hon. member spoke about the Newfoundland veterans and I have assured him, as I assure him once again, that this is one of the first matters with which I am hoping to deal. It takes a little time, and I perhaps get a little impatient. I thought we might have attended to this matter before now, but it does take longer than we amateurs expect when we try to do these things. It is, however, being thoroughly studied and is well on the way.
The hon. member also mentioned a Newfoundland hospital, and I think he suggested that the hospital at Fort Pepperrell might
Supply-Veterans Affairs be acquired. Several weeks ago we became aware of the possibility that this hospital would be vacated by the United States forces and might become available for other use. Consideration was given to the usefulness of this hospital to the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is not intended to request that this hospital be turned over to the department, since it is considered that the proposal already made for the construction of hospital accommodation in St. John's will provide better and more efficient facilities for the hospitalization of veterans in Newfoundland. I also understand that the problem of getting doctors and nurses would create considerable difficulty.


Mr, Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words in reply to the statement the minister has just made. I think everyone would agree with the stand taken when the war veterans allowance was introduced, which was that by reason of his war service in the trenches and the hardships undergone by the serviceman, his normal span of life was reduced by about 10 years, and he would therefore require a pension at the age of 60 because his physical condition would be comparable with that of an ordinary person at the age of 70. Pensions at that time, however, were available only to people aged 70 and over and it was felt that something should be done for the veterans. This was carried out by means of the burned-out pension or the war veterans' allowance.
I am in complete agreement with the minister up to that point, but as he himself pointed out, as time went on these restrictions became relaxed, and pensions were awarded on the basis of a person having served in a theatre of war. That theatre of war was anywhere on the continent of Europe. Many people who went overseas in 1917 and arrived on the continent after the armistice, without having spent a day in the trenches and without having heard a shot fired, but simply because they were lucky enough to get across the channel and land in France, immediately became eligible under the act for a burned-out pension.
Many such people have received awards, and this introduces an element of inequity in the administration of this legislation. If the benefits were restricted to only those people who had served in the firing line and who had undergone hardships and privations such as the rats-the minister mentioned rats but he did not mention vermin, although I can assure him they were worse than the rats in my part of the line-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I shall never forget them.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Chesley William Carter: -that would have been perfectly all right, but we have gone away from that idea and have said that anybody who got to Europe at any time gets a war veterans allowance. I know of many cases of people who, just because they were lucky enough to get a draft in the last months of the war, are in this position. I also know so far as the Newfoundland regiment was concerned, those soldiers were pushed across pretty fast and were in England for perhaps three or four days and then were across the channel. Many became eligible for war veterans allowance after world war I who were not away from their families as long as a lot of other people; some were away for 365 days.
But my quarrel with this is the basis upon which it is awarded. That basis is that the man must have served in a theatre of war, and I contend that in the year 1917 the Atlantic ocean was every bit as much a theatre of war as was the continent of Europe at the time of the armistice.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If a soldier went across in 1917 he would have his year. I was speaking of 1918.


Chesley William Carter: I mentioned the latter part of the year. The minister made one statement which I want to refute right away. He said that he thought there would be quite a great deal of trouble in convincing the old sweats that there was much danger in crossing the Atlantic ocean. I would like to tell him that when I crossed that ocean the submarine menace was pretty bad.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: When did you cross? Let us get this matter straightened out. I was speaking of the latter part of 1918 after the German navy had been driven off the seas and the submarines had mostly been destroyed. I know that in the first three years of the war it was very dangerous to cross the ocean, but all those men are eligible for war veterans' allowance. Do not let us get confused. When did the hon. member cross the ocean?


Chesley William Carter: I crossed early in 1917.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Oh, certainly.


Chesley William Carter: But I am referring to the people who came after that time, and I do not think the subs were chased off the ocean to that extent, even in 1918. Nineteen hundred and seventeen, if I remember correctly, was the height of the sub menace. That was the hardest time. This brings to mind another inequity, in that a merchant navy man who enlisted in 1918 and served on an escort for these fellows who were going over gets credit for having served in a theatre of war and receives a war


veterans allowance. The poor devil who was on the ship being escorted, however, cannot get a war veterans allowance because he was not in a theatre of war. I think that inequity should be straightened out.
I was very glad to hear the minister state that certain proposals are being considered for a veterans' hospital in Newfoundland which would be much better than the facilities offered by the United States base at Fort Pepperrell. I wonder if the minister could go a step further and tell us just what proposals are under consideration.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I may say the proposals are not yet final. As soon as they are I will let the hon. member know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Chairman:: This completes the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
Headquarters administration, national police services and training establishments-
373. Administration, operation and maintenance, $8,131,933.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The Department of Justice, vote No. 373. This item will be found on page 71 of the blue book, the details on page 499. Shall the item carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, is the minister going to give us any statement on this item?


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, it had not been my intention to do so and I do not think that has been the custom in the past. I shall be very glad to listen to any general observations members may have to make and attempt to reply to any questions of a general nature on this item with respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few observations on one specific subject, and that is the security screening which is carried on-of course by and under the responsibility of the government-and of which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is the principal instrument. I noted with a great deal of interest the answer given by the minister to a question put by the hon. member for Port Arthur which will be found at page 831 of Hansard for June 4, 1958. Perhaps in order to refresh the memories of members of the committee I might read both the question and the answer.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the welcome news that a new federal approach to security was revealed in a C.B.C. versus labour dispute involving an employee, would the minister care to make a statement to

this house on the scope of the new federal approach in allowing adverse security reports to be seen by those reported upon?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think I should at once correct the misapprehension which would otherwise be created by the form in which the question was put. To my knowledge, at the hearing which was arranged as a special hearing in this one case, the written security reports, at least in the sense of the complete documents on file, were not shown to the employee involved. It would not be possible to disclose our security files to anyone not authorized to see them.
This particular procedure was an attempt to find an answer to the problem of allowing a hearing, which could properly be called a hearing, to an employee who is suspected on security grounds. In so far as the hearing went, it was a special arrangement, and we are continuing to study the whole question to see if this does suggest a suitable pattern for dealing with this problem.
I read that statement not to criticize it in any way whatsoever. When the Minister of Justice was on this side of the house on several occasions-and I will not waste the time of the committee by referring to them now-he expressed concern about the security procedures which were in effect at that time, and I certainly feel that any hon. member who does not feel concerned about this subject is not really sensitive to the fundamental concepts of justice.
As members of the committee know, I have had over 20 years' experience in the public service and in public life, and it so happens that in the past I have had a good deal to do with such matters in one way or another and in one capacity or another, and I can assure hon. members that there is no more difficult and no more disagreeable public duty which anyone has to perform than that performed by whoever is responsible for carrying out these procedures. It is, I think, distasteful to the natural sense of justice of all of us that any kind of circumstance should arise where a man should be deprived of his employment, or transferred, as often happens, from one kind of employment to another, for reasons which are not fully disclosed to that person. It is repugnant to all of us, or at least I hope it is. It was certainly very repugnant to me.
The only justification I considered to exist when I was where the hon. gentleman is now, on the treasury benches, for having any such procedure, is that it is the supreme duty of the government to safeguard the state itself, and that in the kind of world in which we have had the misfortune to live for a very long time-I say "misfortune" from a somewhat limited point of view, because I do not really think it is a misfortune to be alive, but in the kind of world in which we have had the misfortune to have had to carry on our public affairs-we have been faced at least for 20 years with enemies or potential
Supply-R.C.M.P.
enemies of the Canadian people who have sought to undermine the security of our country both in war and in the postwar period, and we had a very deplorable experience which is not yet out of the memories of many of us, immediately after the war, when it was discovered, by a series of accidents, coupled with excellent police work, that there were in various branches of the public service certain persons who appeared to be, and some of them were convicted of being, the agents of a country which, at least, had no friendly designs in having those agents there.
Therefore, it seems to me there is no way in which the government can escape its responsibility for security screening. As hon. members know, I am not very lavish in my compliments to hon. gentlemen opposite, but I have been very much impressed by the responsible attitude displayed by the Minister of Justice in this matter since he has occupied his present position. He has never attempted to pretend that every position he took when he was over here has turned out to be a tenable position. He has honestly and frankly stated the difficulties he found when he assumed his responsibilities, and he has tried to face this problem squarely.
If these people were guilty of some kind of crime, that would be very simple to deal with. A charge could be laid in the courts and the whole matter disposed of. But what really is the problem in the case of security is that all there is, is suspicion, suspicion that a man is not reliable. That does not mean he is a spy, but that he is thought to be the kind of person who, because of his habits or associations, might betray the interests of our country in essential respects.
The main debate about this subject is really narrowed down to a small point, and that point is this; whether, when such a man is suspected, he should be told precisely what the suspicion is, or whether he should not. This is the whole problem. We have had a good many debates in this house in which arguments have been raised on both sides of that question. The subject has been debated in Westminster also, and in neither Canada nor in the United Kingdom-I do not propose to go further afield for any examples, because I do not think any of the other examples have been very helpful-has it been found possible by the government, whatever its political complexion, to make all the information and all the allegations available to the suspected person in order that he might have an opportunity to reply to them fully, or to refute them.
That is what we should like to do. I hope everyone in the committee would like to see that done if it could be done, but I want to

Supply-R.C.M.P.
emphasize again that these people are not being charged with any crime, and the consequences of making information available to such a person could be manifold, if the suspicions were justified. There is the risk that if he is in guilty association he will inform the persons with whom he has that association. Another consequence could arise, particularly if the man did not feel any sense of guilt; with the natural indignation that all of us would feel in such a situation he might make the whole matter public.
I may be asked why I am concerned about that, now that I am no longer in the government, but I would say this. If, indeed, there be a good case for dispensing with the services of a man on security grounds, that is no reason for making him unemployable. But if a great public inquiry is aroused, what one is really doing is injuring the long-term prospects of the man himself for gainful and useful employment and for a quiet life, a man who is not guilty of any crime but who might be indiscreet. Now, this is, as I say, the problem. I know the minister feels the same concern that we felt when we were on the treasury benches to meet this problem in the best way it can be met.
The minister not only excited my curiosity but he also raised a point which I think should be of concern to all of us in the answer he gave on June 4. I was hoping that, after any other hon. members who wished to say anything about this particular aspect of the subject have spoken, the minister would tell us whether any progress has been made along this line, or whether any other changes have been made in the procedures that were followed.


Harold Edward Winch: Does the minister want to answer that before we speak on another subject?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If no other hon. member wishes to speak on this subject I can perhaps deal with it at this time. I appreciate what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has said, both with respect to myself and the efforts made and the position taken by this government in connection with this matter in following out the desire to establish a satisfactory procedure. I like to think that perhaps some of the feelings now reflected in the remarks of the hon. gentleman on this subject have been instilled in his breast by the fact that he is now a student of law and because-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was a student of liberty long ago.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -of that perhaps it may be fair to suggest that he has a livelier or at least perhaps a more perceptive sense and appreciation of the implications of this subject than when he was not a student of law.

I agree with him at once about the difficulty of the situation. I do not think I have to take issue with anything he said, or particularly anything that he attributed as having been said by me when I was in opposition; but I think I should make it clear that at all times when I was on that side of the house and took part in discussions of this question I never went any further than to say that the man should be given some sort of hearing if some satisfactory method could be devised. I believe it will be found, on checking the record, that I was always careful not to go so far as to say that sources of information should be disclosed to him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman is quite correct and I have no quarrel with him.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When we took office we were concerned to see how far we could go in implementing the principle that we had enunciated, namely that it would be desirable to arrange that a person in the public service, suspect on security grounds, would be given a hearing at which he might get some indication of the nature of the suspicions against him; to see if we could arrange that sort of hearing and yet not have to go all the way and disclose such facts as would in fact compromise your security sources. We undertook that study, and we found ourselves quite early confronted with a particular case, which was the case referred to earlier by the hon. gentleman and which was the subject of question and answer on June 4, as recorded on page 831 of Hansard.
There is, I think, one modification I should make in what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said with regard to the situation in this country and the United Kingdom. He said, as I took down his words, "Neither in Canada nor in the United Kingdom has it been found possible to make all the allegations or all the information available to the suspected person." With these words in their literal sense I have no disagreement, but it is a fact that the United Kingdom went further than we did with respect to giving the suspected person a form of hearing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They had a committee which was set up. This will all be found reported in the United Kingdom debates of, I think, about five or six years ago, which I think the hon. gentleman has studied, as I did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister will permit me, it was just by inadvertence that I did not go on to point that out.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I accept that completely, but I say the significant difference between our

procedure and the procedure in the United Kingdom is this. They had set up a system under which there was a hearing granted to the suspected person. It was made clear that all he would receive was a general indication of the sort of grounds of suspicion, that is, only an indication of the nature of the case against him, the government reserving always to itself the right to decide how far disclosure would be made. And at that hearing which, as I recall it, is conducted by a panel of retired civil servants-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -the accused-that is the danger one gets into, the suspected person- I would like almost to expunge that word from Hansard, because he is not an accused person-the suspected person is not accompanied by counsel. When we took over, however, we wanted to see how far we could go in this direction, which was the sort of direction we had advocated when we were in opposition.
I must say also, to complete the picture here and in fairness to the former administration, that in the discussion that did take place in the house when they were here and we were over there the former prime minister made it clear that they had thoroughly studied the English system and the system in the United States-I think he went that far-[DOT] and while they admitted that the British system went a little further than ours, they felt that ours was preferable and they decided not to adopt the British system.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: However, as I say, when we took office we immediately commenced a study to see how far we could go, what modifications we should introduce along those lines. We were confronted with this case in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which had commenced by way of a grievance brought by an employee who had been refused a promotion to which he felt he was entitled and to which the union of which he was a member felt he was entitled. There had been a special board of inquiry appointed to arbitrate this grievance, and they soon found that there was a reluctance on the part of the C.B.C. to indicate the real nature of the reasons why this promotion had been refused.
In any event, it soon became obvious to the chairman of the board, as I recall it; the question was put to him in such a form that it finally became apparent there was a security aspect involved. I think it is fair to say that there the situation pretty well bogged down, because there was no procedure for dealing with the situation that was then disclosed.
Supply-R.C.M.P.
Obviously the arbitration board which had been appointed to investigate a labour dispute could not assert jurisdiction over the question of security.
I know there was correspondence and discussion between the chairman of the board and my predecessor, but no solution of the difficulty had been found when we took office. So we were faced with a situation quite soon-well, in fact immediately-after June 10 of last year. In the discussions with the officials concerned and with my advisers in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has pointed out, are the main advisers to the government in the field of security, I outlined to them my view with regard to this matter of a hearing. They indicated to me all the difficulties and dangers which they felt in the matter and which had been made clear, I think, in the remarks of the hon. gentleman, namely the difficulty of giving a hearing which would be a hearing in substance and not only in form, the danger that you might disclose, and thus compromise, some vital security information, particularly with regard to the sources of that information. But it was felt that at least on an experimental basis in this particular case we would be justified in arranging a hearing.
Accordingly, with the approval of cabinet a special commissioner was appointed. I will not go into all the terms of reference, but we did our best to devise a system, a form of hearing, under which it would be made possible for the commissioner to disclose to the suspected man at least the general nature of the grounds of suspicion, the kind of thing of which he was suspected, and give him a chance to answer. The representative of the union and the representatives of the C.B.C. expressed themselves as satisfied with the formula we devised, as did the security advisers of the government, and the hearing was accordingly arranged and held with results that have been reported and are now public knowledge.
I should now revert to the general situation. Discussions were initiated with other departments and the ministers concerned, particularly in what may be described as the vital departments in this matter of security, and finally an interdepartmental panel was requested to go into the whole matter. I am not going to minimize the difficulties for a moment. We found that there were difficulties to which as yet we have not found an answer; that is, difficulties in the way of applying the procedure which was made applicable in a specific case to all the general run of problems that may arise in connection with this subject of adverse

Supply-R.C.M.P.
security reports on persons in the public service. As I said in the house on June 4, "in so far as the hearing went", referring to the specific hearing in the C.B.C. case, "it was a special arrangement and we are continuing to study the whole question to see if this does not suggest a suitable pattern for dealing with this problem."
The answer I must now give to the question raised by the hon. member as to what is the present position must be confined to saying that it is my feeling that we have found a pattern which, with some modification and some limitations, may be capable of expansion and of more general application than to the one individual case, but I am not able to say that we have yet found a pattern that can be applied to all cases that may arise in this field. We are continuing the study.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister care to indicate the general lines of the procedure, or are they so similar to those followed in this particular case that it really covers it? The minister referred to a pattern.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The general lines of procedure we have in mind to apply would, I think, be somewhat similar to the formula in that case. The question would be to what areas of the government service you extend it and also what rights of representation does the individual have. It is a matter of record- the order in council was published-that in this particular case the person had the right to be accompanied by counsel. My hon. friend will appreciate that that goes further than the British system. One question we are studying now, and a very important one, is whether that right should be made general if we do apply this procedure to more cases, or to what extent the right of representation might be allowed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is another aspect of the subject about which I should like to make one or two observations and pose one or two questions. As a foundation for that I think perhaps the simplest thing I can do is to refer the committee to a question asked by the hon. member for Skeena to which the minister gave an answer on July 8, as appears at page 2047 of Hansard. The question asked was as follows:
1.	Does the R.C.M.P. maintain any files or dossiers on members of parliament?
2.	If so, upon which members of the present parliament are such files or dossiers maintained?
The answer given by the minister was as follows:
AH Royal Canadian Mounted Police files on individuals are confidential and many are secret.
Perhaps I might interject here that I agree completely with the answer given by the minister. I am not addressing myself to this

question in so far as members of parliament or any particular group are concerned. What I am interested in is the general principle enunciated here.
One of the primary duties of all those responsible for such files is to respect and preserve the confidential or secret nature of their contents. It will be appreciated also that a large number of such files are started by reports, statements or knowledge of activities coming to the attention of responsible members of the police which they are bound to investigate in the course of their duties. The followup on such reports in many cases reveals no necessity for further action, yet there is still a file. This means that many files will be in existence under the names of individuals against whom there is nothing of a substantial, let alone a criminal, nature.
It will therefore be generally agreed that it would be grossly unfair to any such individual to have it revealed or even suspected that there exists a police file under his name, yet there may be many ways in which such a suspicion could be raised. One of the surest ways of laying the foundation for the raising of suspicion would be to isolate-
I think the rest of the answer applies specifically to members of parliament, and I would be wasting the time of the committee by reading it. I said when I started that I agree with the answer given by the minister. I am not one of those who believe in the purveying of hearsay from police reports or from any other source and the defamation of persons' characters in that way. I think it is right and proper, and indeed a fundamental duty of the government, to safeguard these files.
Of course I had a good deal of experience when I was minister of citizenship and immigration, a post which was also occupied for some time in an acting capacity by the present Minister of Justice. One of the duties, and a most disagreeable one, imposed upon the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was the duty of satisfying himself that he was not admitting to this country persons who would subsequently become a danger to the security of the state, and this involved almost daily consultation with the police and access to police files.
I see, sir, that it is one o'clock, and I should like to pursue this matter a little further.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John Whitney Pickersgill: When we adjourned at one o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I had just put on the record part of an answer given by the minister to a question by the hon. member for Skeena, on July 8, and which referred in general terms to the principle governing the use of the files on individuals maintained by

the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In order to give some continuity to my argument, I should like to read again the first paragraph only of that answer. It is only two sentences:
All Royal Canadian Mounted Police files on individuals are confidential and many are secret. One of the primary duties of all those responsible for such files is to respect and preserve the confidential or secret nature of their contents.
I believe I had said just before we adjourned for lunch that a great many of these files or, at any rate, reports from these files, came to my attention in my official capacity when I was minister of citizenship and immigration. The most scrupulous care was taken by me and by the deputy minister, who was the only other person authorized to see these files, to make sure, not only that nothing in these files was disclosed to any unauthorized person including the persons referred to in the files, but we went to very great lengths not to disclose the fact that "security" was the reason for our failure to accept applications from persons who wished to immigrate to this country. We simply said that the application was rejected, and I was criticized quite frequently in this house for doing so, by no one perhaps more strongly than by the present Minister of Justice. As I said, I was criticized for my failure to give any reasons for these rejections.
My argument always was that if I gave reasons in all other cases-this was my principal argument but there were others-I would isolate the security cases. People would know, by a process of elimination, that the rest of the rejections were on security grounds. In order to preserve the sanctity of the files and the information-although I was acting on my own responsibility and on the advice which I thought was, on balance, sound that I should do this-the course I have outlined was followed. I am not seeking to enter into any argument about the practice in the department of immigration; that would be quite unfair to the minister and to the committee. I am merely citing this as an example of how scrupulous I was, and I think this was true of all my colleagues who had to do with these matters, in the use of these police files and police reports.
I say again that I agree with what the minister said in reply to the hon. member for Skeena. I do not believe that anything but harm could come from making public even the existence of files. In order to preserve organized society we have to have police forces. No doubt if we were all good, all as virtuous as we ought to be, we could dispense with the police and save quite a lot of money. But we cannot. The police have to make investigations of people who, in many cases, are innocent or, at least, not
Supply-R.C.M.P.
guilty. I prefer, I must say, the old English phrase "not guilty", because it is very hard to arrive at any accurate conception of innocence, at least in my experience.
But I think it is obvious that it will be very harmful to the character and reputation and the position in society, indeed even the economic prospects, of many people if it is known that their conduct is being investigated by the police. I believe, therefore, the minister is completely right in the position he takes that there should be no disclosure that the police have files on any person until such time as the police use these files for taking action in the courts. We know from experience, and I am quite satisfied about this, that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is a very well administered force. I doubt if there is any better administered force anywhere in the world. We know that they do not take action on trivial grounds. There is the greatest consideration given in these matters.
I was, therefore, greatly perturbed, and I think that many hon. member were greatly perturbed, by something which happened in this committee a day or two ago when we were told by one of the minister's colleagues, in relation to a particular case-perhaps in order to make clear my point I shall have to refresh the memories of hon. members about this case-the minister was being asked what information-


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friend is seeking to revive a matter that was discussed at great length in the committee when we were dealing with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman, may I respectfully suggest he would be out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not seeking to do anything of the kind, sir. What I am seeking to do is to lay the foundation for a question of the minister respecting the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Ask the question, then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps I can exercise my judgment as well as the minister can for me, as to the foundation I need to lay in order to ask a question in a manner to enable all hon. members to understand it. The minister need have no concern about this question if he has no feeling of guilt about the matter.
We were told that certain action was taken by the Minister of Agriculture because he had a considerable number of police and other reports from which he said he was completely satisfied that this man was guilty of securing contraband liquor from these ships. I, of course, have no means of knowing, because

Supply-R.C.M.P.
the minister refused to answer so many questions, whether these police reports to which the Minister of Agriculture referred were Reports of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If the Minister of Justice can assure me they were not and the Minister of Agriculture had no report from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on which to base his statements, then I would feel I was out of order and would not pursue this matter any further. I would desist immediately.
If on the contrary, when the Minister of Agriculture was referring to police reports he was referring to reports from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I submit that this was an abuse of those documents, and an abuse of those documents such as in my experience there has never been before in parliament. The minister should explain how this came about. The minister told us one of the primary duties of those responsible for such files is to respect and preserve the confidential and secret nature of their contents. The question I am putting to the minister is a very simple question. Did the R.C.M.P. provide any files on this particular person to the Minister of Agriculture on which this public statement, made under his immunity in parliament, was made concerning the reputation of a man against whom no charge was laid in the criminal courts, a man who is, under our law, not guilty?
That is why I said earlier that I preferred the old English expression "not guilty" to the word "innocent" because it is extremely hard to define innocence. But under our law, under our system of justice, a man is not guilty until he has been found guilty by the courts. We had the experience here where someone under the immunity of parliament was found guilty by a member of the executive branch of government who said that he found him guilty on the basis of police reports. I was tremendously disturbed by that, Mr. Chairman. As was my duty, I did my best to find out-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I must point out to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that he is at present discussing the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture in relation to the particular case to which he is referring at the present time. That procedure is quite out of order and I must ask the hon. member to limit his remarks to the estimates of the Department of Justice, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in particular.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I have in any way transgressed the rules of the house, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I am sorry.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: You have been out of order more than has any other member of the House of Commons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure that the hon.
member for Saint John-Albert is not in order.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. The hon. member
for Bonavista-Twillingate has the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It may be that I did not express myself very clearly. I will endeavour to circumscribe my observations to the limit. I am very much concerned at this time about this situation but in this committee at this time on the estimates of the Minister of Justice or of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police I am not concerned about any aspect of the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture except one. I am concerned to find out whether the Minister of Agriculture used the files of the R.C.M.P. in a manner which is certainly not consistent with the answer given to the hon. member for Skeena by the Minister of Justice. That is the only matter with which I am concerned. It seems to me that I should now leave it to the minister to tell us whether or not the Minister of Agriculture was furnished with any files, information or reports by the R.C.M.P. on the particular case which was under discussion in this house and on which the minister made what I regarded as the defamatory statements he made in this house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think this matter should be dealt with at once if other hon. gentlemen will permit me to do so. I think I can only echo the words used by the Minister of Agriculture that this is a classic example of making a mountain out of a molehill. It is true that, in answer to the question which has been referred to by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I said that all Royal Canadian Mounted Police files are confidential and secret and that it is the duty of those in charge of those files to preserve their confidential or secret nature; and to that I add "as the case may be".
The hon. gentleman, under the guise of concern with regard to security which we all agree is secret-and the contents of security files must be secret-has proceeded to attempt to draw an erroneous, unfair and inapplicable conclusion with regard to the use to be made of files which are confidential. I made some reference earlier to the fact that the hon. gentleman is now a student at law. I think perhaps I should now refer to the fact that he could not have been applying himself to his studies very long or he would appreciate the difference between security and secret information, and confidential information.
The simple answer to this whole matter, so far as the case referred to in Montreal is concerned, is that there was an investigation of an official of the Department of Agriculture carried on by the R.C.M.P., as a

result of which the R.C.M.P. took certain action. I do not think my hon. friend would wish to be this absurd, but he has been this absurd. He has suggested that the Minister of Agriculture should not have been shown or been informed as to the results of the police investigation into the activities of an official of that minister's department. The case is just as simple as that. It just shows the absurd lengths my hon. friend is prepared to go in his efforts to seek to revive here a discussion which properly took place-and which should only properly take place-on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to pursue this matter. The minister has made a definite allegation-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver East.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister has made a definite allegation about me.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. May I point out to the hon. member that I have given the floor to the hon. member for Vancouver East.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am raising a question of privilege, which procedure I believe is in order at any time. The Minister of Justice has just asserted that I said the Minister of Agriculture was not entitled to be shown these files. I said nothing of the kind.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was certainly the inference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not what I said nor was it the inference to be taken from what I said. What I said was that the Minister of Agriculture was not entitled to make the contents of these files public in order to defame a man who was not guilty in the eyes of the law. If the Minister of Justice considers that is a principle-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member is being not only absurd but is being repetitious.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking on a question of privilege. I would ask the minister to sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am raising a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking on a question of privilege and I have not concluded what I have to say. I had many lessons in procedure from the hon. gentleman when he sat over here on this side of the house.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. We are discussing a question which has already been discussed
Supply-R.C.M.P.
in the house. We cannot go back to the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture nor can we discuss at the present time the conduct or the behaviour of the Minister of Agriculture. Our discussion must be relevant and we must talk about the estimates of the Department of Justice. Actually, if an investigation was made by the Department of Justice, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in particular, and if the information secured from this investigation was given to the Minister of Agriculture, it is quite normal to presume that the Minister of Agriculture based his further action on the information received. But this question was all threshed out in this house at great length and I believe it is quite out of order at the present time to go back to this particular debate and for hon. members to pass judgment on the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put another question to the Minister of Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Order


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a question that has nothing to do with this particular case.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has to do with the general principles surrounding the case but not the specific matter itself.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to ask the minister whether he believes it is proper for himself or any other member of the government here in this house to use information secured from the confidential police files in order to defame and besmirch the character of a man who has not been tried in the courts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: You are a
privy councillor. Have you not more respect for parliament? Shame.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I would not normally answer a question of that kind but I do not think it should be allowed to stand on the record by itself. In the first place, there is absolutely no justification for the terms used by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. In the second place, I would point out that the information given was requested, obtained and insisted upon by hon. members opposite.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister himself has not answered my question at all, Mr. Chairman. He has gone back to the case which you ruled could not be discussed. I asked a perfectly general question and I repeat it.

Supply-R.C.M.P.
Does the minister believe that the confidential files of the mounted police should be used so that a minister may make statements in this house based upon those files concerning the character and reputation of a person who has not been convicted by the courts of any offence whatsoever. That is the question I am putting to the minister. Does he think that is a proper use of the files of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? I would remind him that such use was never made of those files in the days during which we were in office.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I do not believe that question is relevant to the matter under discussion at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. We are now discussing the estimates of the Department of Justice with relation to the administration of this particular department and I do not believe the question asked of the minister by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is relevant to the present discussion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that if we cannot discuss the use made by the administration of the files of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, then there is no aspect which we can discuss. Surely the files are the product of the police administration and the purpose, the reason why we have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is precisely to accumulate this information, to make these investigations in order that the information may be used for the protection of society. Furthermore, surely it is a restriction upon the freedom of speech in this house to suggest for one moment that we cannot discuss the use made of these files which are paid for by the taxpayers. We are in committee of supply, appropriating or not appropriating moneys for the service of Her Majesty which is to be spent by the minister who is responsible to this house. The minister is ultimately responsible for all of these files and the use that is made of them and I have asked him a question about their use. The minister did not have any hesitation in answering the hon. member for Skeena-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have no hesitation in answering the hon. member if he will just cease his tirade and give me an opportunity to do so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I have the floor.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course if the hon. gentleman wishes to prevent an answer from being given, that is his privilege.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Getting childish now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to repeat what I said before, namely that I think this committee is entitled to know whether or not the minister considers it is a proper use of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police files to base upon them statements in this house with respect to persons who have not been found guilty of any kind of offence in the courts of law.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as this question cannot be answered in the abstract because of the efforts-and I make no comment as to whether they are proper or not-of the hon. gentleman to relate these files to an incident regarding an official of the Department of Agriculture, I have to answer the question in this way.
In this particular case no improper use was made of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police files. There was an investigation which disclosed certain facts and, as a result, an order was made by the Minister of National Revenue, acting within the proper scope of his statutory authority, for the destruction of contraband goods. That order was carried out without protest from the person affected by the order and the contraband goods were confiscated and destroyed. That is the sum and substance of that incident; there was no defamation of character and there was no improper use of Royal Canadian Mounted Police files. The order made on the authority of the Minister of National Revenue was based on information properly coming to him as a result of an R.C.M.P. investigation. That is the answer to that question.
The answer to the general question is that the hon. member knows as well as I do that of course it would not be proper to make improper use of R.C.M.P. files for the purpose of defamation of character, and no such thing has been done by this government, whatever may have been done by the former government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I assume that you will allow me the same liberty you have allowed the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -to comment upon his remarks on this particular case. I have no quarrel whatsoever and neither would any responsible person have any quarrel with what the minister has now told us was done by the Minister of National Revenue. If the Minister of National Revenue or any officer of his department used any information secured from the mounted police in order to deal with contraband goods, that is perfectly proper. I have no objection whatsoever to that and neither would any

sensible person have any objection to it. I at no time objected to it, in fact I did not even know about it until the minister told us just now.
What I did know about, however, is that another of the minister's colleagues came into this house and boasted that he had police reports which he had never shown to the accused person-and I use the word in the same sense as did the minister because this man was never accused of anything; I would call him the defamed person-and took advantage of his immunity in this house and on the basis of these police reports blackened the character of a man who has never been allowed to stand trial and who has never even heard the charges against him, according to the admission of the Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Order. Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And if that is justice-


Mr. Pearkes:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -then it is something new.


Mr. Ricard:: He is a smuggler; are you trying to protect a smuggler?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No one is a smuggler until he is convicted. Perhaps the hon. gentleman convicts a person without trial.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: May I remind hon. members of this house that this is not the time to discuss the conduct of another minister of the crown in relation to a question which has already been discussed in the house.
We are now discussing the estimates of the R.C.M.P. and we must adhere to the administrative elements of the estimate before us, so it is quite out of order to hold a discussion on the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture in relation to this particular case which has already been mentioned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if the minister is content to leave the matter where it now stands, I am satisfied.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I hope I may be permitted to discuss two matters relating to the R.C.M.P. The first matter I raise at the request of a number of members of the R.C.M.P. who, of course, shall remain unnamed but who over a period of many months have drawn to my attention a question which is disturbing many members of the service and on account of which there have been many resignations and in respect of which there are likely to be many resignations in the future. I refer to a situation of which I am certain the minister is aware, namely, the insistence of the R.C.M.P. on
Supply-R.C.M.P.
retaining a regulation which says that because you are in the scarlet and gold love goes out of the window.
I know there are many things which can be covered by law and regulation, but I have my doubts that any law or regulation can ever be formulated which will stand in the way of a man falling in love with a woman, and heaven help us if any way is ever found in which to do that. But, Mr. Chairman, this regulation has been in effect for a long time in the R.C.M.P. that once you take the oath you cannot legally express yourself as a man to a woman until you have served at least five years. A great many of the new recruits to the service are young men, and just as time after time we find that those who are not in service meet the woman of their dreams, so do the boys in scarlet and gold. But they are told: you cannot get married. Why not, Mr. Chairman?
I know that the men of the R.C.M.P. move from one municipality to another and from one province to another, but why, because of that, should a man and the woman of his choice be told: you must remain separated. What is the result? I am certain the minister knows that there is a comparatively rapid turnover in the service every year, and I feel certain he would find out, very often, that it is because of this regulation, and because the man concerned says that if he cannot get the woman of his choice by staying in the service, then he is jolly well going out of the service. That does not mean he is going to be out of a job, because I have been told that a man who has been trained in the R.C.M.P. is not going to be out of a job long after he leaves that service, because the municipalities and provinces, because of the good training he has received, are tickled to death to employ him on provincial or municipal service. I have been asked by a surprising number of members of the R.C.M.P. if I could raise this point in the House of Commons, and I ask the Minister of Justice whether he could tell us if there is going to be any change in this regulation.
Mr. Chairman, I said there was a second point which I should like to raise at this time. Unfortunately, there are some men and women who are anti-social and who break the law. Because they are anti-social they are put in jail, and this country spends a great many millions of dollars every year to keep these anti-social persons behind prison walls. In addition, we spend millions of dollars annually trying to rehabilitate these persons and give them a social conscience. Millions of dollars are spent on formal education when required, on vocational training, on psychiatric treatment and on psychologists' guidance for the purpose of rehabilitating

Supply-R.C.M.P.
these anti-social individuals. Then, after the prison term is served they are released and go back into society, and I am sure it is the hope of the Minister of Justice that they will then become social beings. I think, also, that the Minister of Justice would agree that those who have committed an offence and who have paid for their crime should not be hounded back into a criminal life.
I would be the last person to condemn the majority because of the action of a few, and I want to make it abundantly clear that in my estimation the majority of members of the R.C.M.P. do everything they possibly can to assist in the rehabilitation of former criminals who have served their sentences. Unfortunately, however, there are a few who do not have that attitude, and this is a serious matter when we remember the millions of dollars which this country is spending in endeavouring to rehabilitate antisocial persons, and when we recognize that up to the present, at least, we appear to a considerable extent to have failed in that object.
I was somewhat amazed, reading the annual report of the commissioner of penitentiaries for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1957, to see on page 53 that the percentage of recidivists in the penitentiaries that year in Canada was 80.23. It may be that the people I have just referred to constitute only part of that number, but whatever can be done in this regard should be done without delay, because men who have served their sentences and who are desirous of becoming useful members of society should not be so hounded that they cannot rehabilitate themselves. By that, I mean that they should not be stopped in public wherever they go by members of the police force.
At this moment I am discussing the R.C.M.P. If they get a job, it should not be felt to be the responsibility of the R.C.M.P.-and I repeat that I am only speaking now, of a very small minority-to go to that man's employer and say: do you know you have a former criminal in your employment? The result nine times out of ten is that the man loses his job, and when that happens more than once hon. members will realize the effect upon the man concerned who must have been somewhat weak-minded to have become a criminal in the first place.
I want to tell the Minister of Justice and the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. that I am not speaking in generalities or from rumour, but from my own knowledge as a result of information given to me in the penitentiaries as a visitor. Perhaps I have been able to be of some assistance in getting men out on parole, and getting them jobs. And then

I find that time after time they have not been allowed to rehabilitate themselves. I was most interested in one young man who, on release, got a job as a truck driver. Day after day he was stopped on the street when he was recognized, with the result that he was fired. Another man was a recidivist of one of the worst types I have known, and yet toward the end of his last sentence the warden, the padre and the relations officer all said: this man is now reformed. The hon. minister's department let him out on ticket of leave and he got a job. One week later he had that job no longer because the R.C.M.P. went in and told his employer: do you know you have a criminal on your staff, a bank robber? The man got another job, and only 10 days later the same thing happened. He found yet another job, and shortly afterwards he was fired in the same circumstances. Not long ago he came to me and said: "Mr. Winch, I am going to get out of town. I am going to a small village up the coast hoping I will be allowed to redeem myself." I have not seen the man since but I heard about him recently. He was serving three months. Do you know why? It was because he had been stopped again, in this town, by the R.C.M.P. and this time his cup runneth over-he blew his top and socked the cop. He was sentenced to three months for assault.
It goes even beyond that. I have told the committee about this young man who lost job after job because of this hounding practice. He has another brother, a brother who is younger but who looks very like him. That brother has never been in conflict with the law in his life, but because his brother has been in jail four times he is stopped by the police and has lost job after job although he has no criminal record at all. I know this is not done by the majority, but I think that even if this happens only in a minority of cases it is nevertheless of importance. The rehabilitation of men in penitentiaries is, I know, of great concern to the minister, and I have an idea that he is going to bring in some legislation in this field while he is in office.
I am asking the minister whether he does not think that perhaps he might now take the action that was taken four or five years ago when I also raised this matter in the House of Commons and gave instances which were investigated, or at least one case, and as a result the minister's predecessor in office had a directive sent out-and I believe it was sent out by the commissioner-outlining to all officials; not that they all needed it, but some did-that they be very careful not to undermine this process of rehabilitation and establishment of a social consciousness; that if they felt they had to interrogate a person, it should be done on the quiet and not in

public, but under no circumstances were they to go to an employer and have a man fired because he had a previous criminal record.
I just make the suggestion that perhaps the minister might consider the re-issuing of a directive of the nature of the one that was distributed some four or five years ago.
I said, sir, I had two matters relating to the R.C.M.P. These are the matters. I hope the minister will agree with my second proposal but most certainly, sir, not because it affects me, because it does not-I am married; I have three children and five grandchildren; I have done well-but because it affects members of the R.C.M.P. who were born the same way and have the same emotions and feelings as the rest of us. How about relaxing that non-marriage clause and let them build up this country the same as you and I have?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the two points raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East, I should like to deal with the second one first. The problem of police contacts with persons who are out from penitentiary, having either completed their sentence or are out on parole, is not an easy one because the police recognize as fully as the hon. gentleman does, and as I do, the unfortunate effects of any suggestion of undue supervision or, as he put it, hounding. I can assure him that every effort is made from the top to the bottom to ensure that that will not happen; but, on the other hand, it is still a continuing police duty to check on activities or information coming to their attention which indicate that either investigation or possible action should be taken, and they cannot exempt persons who have been in penitentiary from their normal supervision. It is still part of their duty as police to supervise the conduct of those men to the same extent as it is their obligation to supervise or investigate the conduct of those who may never have been in penitentiary. That is the difficulty with which the force is faced, or with which any police force is faced; but I can assure the hon. gentleman that instructions have been issued-and they are continuing instructions-to which he has referred, to all detachments. I think I had better read the instruction which was issued. It is the one to which the hon. gentleman referred in the committee which sat in the spring of 1957. It reads as follows:
It is sometimes necessary that members of the force inquire into the activities and associates of released convicts or interrogate ex-convicts as to their associations and movements. Such work is a part of police responsibility to the community and nothing in this instruction is to curtail the action of members in the investigation of crime or the proper questioning of suspects.
Inquiries affecting ex-convicts must, however, always be carried out with great care and discretion
Supply-R.C.M.P.
in order that any genuine attempt being made toward rehabilitation will not be hampered or discouraged. Ex-convicts who have resumed or continued a life of crime deserve no special consideration but where there is any indication that a man is making any effort to re-establish himself as a good citizen, any contacts members have with him should be arranged so that his task will not be made more difficult.
The force is vitally interested in rehabilitation work and must always be prepared to assist such efforts in any reasonable manner so long as our actions in that direction do not conflict with our primary police duty of protecting the public and investigating crime.
I am informed that that order or instruction was issued as a permanent instruction to all detachments and that as such it is incorporated in the book of instructions by which all members of the force are bound. We will at all times be prepared, however, to satisfy ourselves that the instruction is properly and sufficiently drawn to the attention of the members of the force. If at any time either from an instance drawn to our attention by others, or from information which we ourselves may bring to light, it should seem that the instruction is not sufficiently widely known or observed, then we shall be prepared to consider issuing some new-not a directive-direction that the instruction be drawn to the attention of all members.
In so far as the instances to which the hon. member refers are concerned, if they are exactly as reported by him, then I would say that if they were carried out by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel in the manner in which the hon. gentleman has outlined, they were contrary to this instruction. But I would suggest to him that he consider carefully first whether in fact in regard to the incident he related, it was a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who was involved. If there is any case that comes to the attention of the hon gentleman or to any other person's attention, in which he has reason to believe that the attitude of the force is not that which they are instructed to observe, if he will bring it to our attention we will be glad to look into the matter.
With regard to the question of marriage, it is a difficult and continuing problem. However, I think the hon. gentleman has overlooked one thing. Probably he is aware of it but forgot to mention it, namely that some two or three years ago the rigid rule regarding five years' service before marriage was relaxed and in certain circumstances members of the force may now marry after three years' service. Therefore, we have made that concession at least-


Harold Edward Winch: What happens if he falls in love in the first three years?

Supply-R.C.M.P.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -toward the interest, considerations and requirements to which he has drawn our attention.
I should also point out that the figures of annual wastage from all causes, retirements on pension, discharges and retirements by reason of marriage, are not unduly heavy; indeed, they are satisfactorily light. One always likes to see them as light as possible. In 1957 they amounted to 6.41 per cent for all reasons, as I say, including retirements on pension.


Harold Edward Winch: Out of some 2,500.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend is quite wrong; there are some 5,300 members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Harold Edward Winch: Over 300 a year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will my hon. friend please observe that this is not due to marriage exclusively; this includes wastage for all reasons, the great bulk of which will be retirement on pension, or a very large percentage of which is due to retirement on pension. This is a problem that the authorities are as fully aware of as my hon. friend. The best research and study given to it so far indicates that the purposes and requirements of the force are best served by maintaining a minimum period before marriage is permitted.


Harold Edward Winch: Will the minister explain just why it is necessary for the three-year or five-year period? I can assure the Minister of Justice right now that he has in his service a number of young men who are just waiting to hear what he is going to say now so that they may decide whether or not they get out of the force. Why? Because they want to get married. Why should they not be allowed to get married?


Edmund Davie Fulton: As my hon. friend puts it, every man interested in joining the R.C.M.P. is on the verge of marriage but I can assure him that is not the case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How does the minister know?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are many young men wishing to join the R.C.M.P. who have no present intention of getting married at all and they become recruits. It is pointed out to me that there is a period of one year required for training before the man's recruit training is completed and he can be sent to his first post.


Harold Edward Winch: Who knows when love is going to strike?


Edmund Davie Fulton: His first posting may be to an area where it is just not physically possible or sensible for him to contemplate taking a 
wife. It is for that reason that the requirement of five years or in certain circumstances three years is in the regulations. While, of course, we do not like to think of any potential recruits being barred from the force or in their own judgment finding it not desirable to join because they would rather get married, nevertheless I can assure the hon. gentleman that our recruiting program is going very satisfactorily and that notwithstanding the requirement of abstention from marriage for this limited period we are able to get all the recruits we want within the limitations of the manpower ceiling approved by cabinet.


Harold Edward Winch: What happens if after he signs up he meets a girl and falls in love? what are the basic reasons of the R.C.M.P. for having this requirement of five years or three years? Just what does the minister mean by saying that they can get married in three years under certain circumstances? What is behind all this?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely not that old shotgun again!


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can assure my hon. friend that I mean nothing sinister by that statement nor do I intend any reflection on those who come within the category where marriage after three years is permitted. In certain large communities where we are doing municipal police work and where it is found that the service is not as attractive to single men as service in some of the remote areas, and in certain other circumstances where the duty is not attractive to single men and the circumstances of the duty are such that there is no reason why marriage should not be permitted, then the time limit is reduced to three years. But I am sure the hon. gentleman knows well that there are some areas in which the R.C.M.P. is required to serve and some classes of the duty of that service where marriage is-


Mr. Nixon:: Careful now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -admittedly detrimental, shall I say, to the efficient discharge of those duties. We would be accused of being harsh and inhuman if we posted married men to certain areas where the R.C.M.P. have to serve and therefore we have to make the requirement that our recruits do not marry for a minimum period.


Mr. McGee:: Mr. Chairman, there are two matters on which I would appreciate some comment from the minister. One pertains to any change inaugurated by the minister after the famous date of June 10, 1957, which has resulted in substantial savings to the depart-men. Second, I would appreciate some comment from the minister concerning an aspect

of national defence. I raised this question in the estimates committee when we were dealing with North American defence matters and was referred by the chairman of that committee to the minister and his estimates. The matter has to do with defending this continent in ways that are expensive against the arrival of nuclear devices by sea, air or otherwise. I think all members will certainly agree that the Department of National Defence has made a tremendous effort in this regard. However, the possibility does exist of nuclear devices arriving in this country and being planted in a strategic area by a method not already counted by existing defence measures. I refer to the activities of saboteurs and persons of that type. Without wishing any breach of security, I would appreciate some comment from the minister as to what the activities of the mounted police are in that regard.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can only answer the second question in a rather general way. We are aware of the potential danger in this regard and that is one of the aspects of the duties of the security and intelligence service of the police, namely so far as possible to identify and keep close track of the movements of potential enemy agents in Canada. In this way we hope to be able to identify any pattern that might develop along the line to which the hon. gentleman refers.
There is also a constant exchange of security information with the security agencies of other friendly countries. In that way we would hope to be informed of any developments or plans to move agents into Canada or any plans that may come to their attention. Further, of course, we are in communication with the armed services of Canada with regard to any information coming to their attention. About all I can say is that we are aware of the potential danger, are taking what steps we can and believe we are taking adequate steps to safeguard against it.
With regard to the matter of savings initiated since we took office in June of 1957, we have reviewed the purchase policy in all fields but particularly with respect to automobiles and also our policy with regard to the use and life of automobiles. While I am unable to give my hon. friend any particulars because the factors here are difficult to isolate with particularity, we believe we have been able to effect substantial savings as a result of the new policy.


Mr. Badanai:: Many thousands of visitors to Canada travel hundreds of miles for the one express purpose of seeing our Royal Canadian Mounted Police, only to return to their countries sadly disappointed because they did
Supply-R.C.M.P.
not have the privilege even of catching a glimpse of what they recognize is the finest and most colourful body of men in the world. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why these young men are the object of special attention by so many young ladies who are not slow in laying siege to capture them. Here we have a situation not so much of a force that gets its man but of the dear ladies capturing members of the force.
Pictures of mounties are found on postcards, souvenirs and government advertising folders and literature urging visitors to come to Canada. No wonder they are disappointed when they do not see these men. We in Canada should feel proud that our country has become favoured because of many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that we can point with pride to the finest group of men in the world upholding law and order in the land.
It seems to me, therefore, that all should see to it that there are enough of them so that every visitor will be able to return home with the satisfaction that his trip to Canada was made more enjoyable and exciting because he actually saw a Royal Canadian Mounted policeman. We are anxious to relieve unemployment. What more beneficial method could we adopt than to build up the strength of our mounted police force to a point where we would be assured of having one or two mounted police officers at each point of entry into Canada. I am only asking the minister if he will tell the house whether or not an increase in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is contemplated? I trust the minister will give this some consideration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am very glad to assure the hon. gentleman that we are giving constant consideration to this problem because it is one of the real problems which which we are faced, not so much in the discharge of the duties of a working police force as in what I might call the incidental fields. This is a real and continuing problem. One of the things which give me and all the members of the force, from the commissioner down, very real satisfaction is that people want to see the full uniform, that is the red coat of the mounted police, because it does typify in the public mind the character and reputation of that force. But my hon. friend appreciates that it is not possible to discharge the real day-to-day work of a police force in that uniform. Our first essential is to do the job of a police force. If we do not do that, then it would not matter how splendidly the force was dressed or how colourful the uniform, the reputation would not be there. Every

Supply-R.C.M.P.
officer and man of the force also appreciates that. Our problem, therefore, is to reconcile the necessity of carrying on the ordinary everyday duties of a police force, and yet accept the numerous requests that come in, such as the one made by the hon. gentleman, that we should have a man in full dress uniform at border crossing points.
Every time we accept one request we find it lands us in greater difficulty because someone else will say, you have done it for them so now you have to do it for us. We have had to restrict, therefore, to a minimum the number of occasions and areas in which we provide a man in a scarlet uniform, tunic and breeches, for what I might call display or parade purposes. I do not decry, for a moment, parade and display when properly used, but we have to keep it under control. It is only at such points as Ottawa, certain provincial capitals and one or two other places, where we make this concession to the desire of Canadians and tourists to see mounted police constables in bright uniforms.
However, as I have said, we are giving consideration to meeting these requests, and wherever a request for a special appearance appears a reasonable one we do our best to comply with it. We have a problem right now with regard to the strength of the force. We are by no means overmanned. Indeed, I believe if there is anything in that way it lies in the other direction. We are unable, therefore, to comply with the suggestion the hon. member makes. It could be that one day when we are fully manned and feel we have reached a strength where every duty can be complied with and still leave some men over for the type of appearance that the hon. gentleman has in mind, then we would be glad indeed to supply the largest number of men we could under the circumstances to which he has referred.


Hubert Badanai: May I ask the minister if the force is now at full strength? If so, what is the number of men in the force?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is as close as we can get to full strength. The hon. gentleman will appreciate that from day to day the number varies, but to all intents and purposes it is up to full strength. The authorized strength is 5,376, and as of the date of the last report we were within 30 of that number.


Frank Howard: When the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was speaking earlier he made some reference to some of the relationships he said the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had with information from the mounted police. May I inquire of the minister whether in the operation and functions of

the R.C.M.P. with respect to proposed immigrants from other countries those people who intend to come to this country are investigated from a security point of view?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The position is that the mounted police are the security advisers of the government. Therefore, in any case or in all cases where security considerations are a relevant factor, whether it be in the field of immigration or otherwise, it is our responsibility to advise the government with regard to the acceptability or otherwise from a security point of view.


Frank Howard: I appreciate that. I wonder if such investigations were made from a security point of view with respect to the immigrants who came from Hungary, particularly, within the last two or three years?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. We are getting a little close, I think, to the area of responsibility of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and some of these matters may better be discussed on her estimates. However, I can answer the question.
The hon. gentleman will recall that with regard to the Hungarian refugees a calculated risk was taken. It was recognized we did not have facilities for making the normal examinations, either of health or of certain other factors with respect to these refugees, such as we insist upon with respect to immigrants moving through the normal channels. In so far as possible, health and security checks were carried out. This is within my knowledge because I was, for a while, acting minister of that department. The percentage of error, if I may call it that, in both respects was remarkably and satisfactorily small. It is, to a certain extent, true that the strict requirements of security and health checks were waived or lowered; this policy was accepted by the former administration and continued by us.


Mr. Regier:: May I ask the minister whether, when the Prime Minister of Canada visits other countries or when members of the cabinet visit other countries or are in attendance at the United Nations, they are accompanied by members of the R.C.M.P.?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not the present Prime Minister, and I do not believe the members of the cabinet ever were.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
257. Departmental administration including annual contribution of $200 to the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada, $592,290.
Mr. Roberge:: I do not want to take up too much time of the committee but there are

a few observations I should like to put on the record. They have to do with the administration of justice in general in this country and especially with the appointment of judges of the superior courts as they are called, in the province of Quebec or judges of the supreme court of the other provinces and also the judges of the court of Queen's Bench.
There are a number of systems, as I know, with regard to the appointment of judges around the world. In some countries students, when they take law, decide that they want to become judges. They therefore direct their studies especially to that end and the government of the country-and I think this is especially true for France-appoints those students as judges when they have completed their studies. I do not think this system should be applied to Canada. I think that the system as it is now in this country is sound and good. It is true that the criticism is sometimes made that the government of this country-whether the former government or this one-appoints political partisans to the bench. I have no objection to that procedure, and I am not saying that because I am a lawyer and may be aspiring to an appointment to the bench; I am quite sure that I will not be appointed during the next four years. However, it is true that the government appoint lawyers to the bench, especially lawyers who have had a very active practice and at the same time a very active political career. In my opinion it is a good thing that this is so. There is no other field in which one can learn so much of human nature as can be learned by engaging in politics. This is the place where we meet more people and where we can learn more of the human character. It is also true that those lawyers who have extensive practices are better qualified to be good judges.
There is a particular problem that affects the citizens of this country in general and also, of course, the citizens of Quebec. I do not agree with the statement of the premier of Quebec that here in Ottawa we are elsewhere. I think we are in our own country whether we are in Ottawa, in Quebec or anywhere else in the country. I make this suggestion to the minister and in doing so may I say that I appreciate the fact that the matter is not entirely in the field of jurisdiction of this government. The federal government do not establish the number of judges in the provinces. That is true especially, I am sure, for the province of Quebec; it is a matter which appertains to the premier of Quebec. I refer to the determination of the number of judges of the superior court.
Supply-J ustice
I know that not enough judges are appointed in the province of Quebec and I also know that not enough are appointed in some other provinces either. I know that, Mr. Chairman, because your father is the chief justice of the province of Quebec and he is complaining every year that the number of judges is not commensurate with the number of cases to be heard.
In my own district which was established in 1956 there are over 100 cases on the list and not one that has been inscribed there since July 1, 1956 has been heard. As far as I know this situation prevails all over. It is not right that the citizens of Canada who want to put their cases before the court should be confronted with the situation that it takes a year, a year and a half, two years, or maybe three years to be heard. The witnesses may no longer be there. Sometimes they are dead. They may have moved out of the district. It is extremely hard for our clients to come before the courts three years and maybe four years after an accident has taken place; I am referring to automobile accident cases especially. I suggest that some step should be taken, either by correspondence or otherwise with the provincial authorities, to appoint more judges.
I should like to make another suggestion, namely that more consideration be given to the appointment as judges of lawyers who are practising in the country rather than in the cities. I congratulate the Minister of Justice because I know he appointed in the province of Quebec at least two or four who where lawyers practising in small cities and in the country. I have nothing against lawyers practising in big cities but they are more or less becoming specialists in some cases whereas those who are practising in the country-and the minister knows this- are obliged to carry on a wider practice.
Those were the few remarks I wished to make. I am sure that in the future, as has been the case in the past, the Minister of Justice who has the responsibility of recommending the appointments, will appoint judges who will discharge their duties in the best way possible and always with great honesty.
(Translation):


Mr. Dorion:: Mr. Chairman, before considering the estimates of the Department of Justice in detail, may I be allowed to make a few remarks of a general nature, which I consider germane to the debate just begun. As I do not wish to obstruct the business of the house, I shall try to be clear, brief and accurate.

Supply-Justice
First of all, I want to tell the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) how happy we have been to learn these last few days, that he had entrusted some lawyers with the study of a report published last spring by the commission on restrictive trade practices, with regard to the purchase of pulpwood from our farmers, and, if there is ground, to take legal action as provided by statute. Having been among the first, during this session, to stress the importance of the matter and the urgent need of government action, I now ought to tender my most sincere congratulations to the hon. minister. His attitude, which is that of the government, eloquently proves that, in this country, there is only one law for all citizens, that before the law nobody is too great or too small, nor too powerful or too weak, and that anybody who does not observe it can incur punitive action, which the courts are authorized to impose.
Moroever, during the last few days, the hon. minister informed this house that in September, he would invite the attorney generals of all the provinces to Ottawa to discuss with them the report of the Fauteux commission and to determine any legislation which should follow upon that report. As everyone knows, some findings of the report call for various changes in the way justice is now administered by the provinces. Rather than take the initiative of legislating alone, the Conservative government has chosen to consult the provinces so as to base its action on their views in this matter, if necessary. This action contrasts with certain unilateral practices of which the former government was so fond. It shows the concern for the constitution, which now obtains, as well as the concern for the constitutional powers of the provinces. It is such as to create an atmosphere of mutual confidence and contribute efficiently to the maintenance of national unity. The Minister of Justice and the government of the country deserve congratulations and thanks on that score.
This Fauteux report has reference to social and legal problems in which anybody who has anything to do with social services or the administration of justice must take an active interest. Among those who, in the district of Quebec, have always been interested in this, there was Hon. Justice Oscar Boulanger, who died suddenly a few days ago and whose memory it is appropriate to recall here. He sat in this house as member for Bellechasse from 1926 to 1940 and had a particularly active and fruitful parliamentary life. He has left the memory of a parliamentarian imbued with the purest patriotism, a patriotism rooted in the soil of the constituency of Bellechasse where he was born and where the land has remained the great provider not only on a

strictly material basis but even more so on the moral and intellectual level.
In 1940, he abandoned politics for the bench. Having had many an occasion to plead before him, I came to appreciate his legal knowledge, his acute sense of justice, and his perfect integrity. He rose all the more in the estimation of litigants because his conscience dictated an equitable approach to the sometimes overstringent requirements of the law. It was through this balanced formula that he sought justice, and strove to assure it of victory.
He had two other betes noires: perjury, and misuse of French. The newspaper L'Action Catholique, in its issue of 22nd July last, recalled this aspect of his temperament as follows:
Though not a purist, he readily took up the cudgels, on behalf of the French language, against habitual users of incorrect terms and anglicisms, especially in cases having to do with automobile accidents. He would indignantly flay, sometimes with bitter irony, witnesses oblivious of the solemnity of their oath, bent on toying with the truth.
The career of Hon. Justice Boulanger once again leads to the conclusion that, in principle, there is no reason why magistrates should not, at times, be selected among lawyers who have been in politics. To his legal training, to his experience as a practitioner, to the integrity which is the first requirement to his admission to and maintenance in the bar association, the parliamentary lawyer generally adds a degree of psychology, of knowledge and of broadmindedness which can be acquired only here and which will be of great assistance to him in untangling the tragedies of which court proceedings are but the outcome.
In a speech made in 1853, protesting against the suggestion that the Master of the Rolls be ineligible to the House of Commons, Lord Macaulay said:
(Text):
I believe that there is a close connection between the functions of the law-givers as between anatomy and surgery. Would it not be the height of absurdity to lay down the rule that nobody who dissected the dead should be allowed to operate on the living?
(Translation):
Et plus loin:
(Text):
Who can be so well qualified to make laws and to mend laws as a man whose business is to interpret laws and to administer laws?
(Translation):
Without going as far as Lord Macaulay, and without holding the view that it would still be appropriate for a man to be at one and the same time a judge and a legislator, the fact

remains that this reasoning could then be justified by experience going back several centuries.
Far be it from me to suggest that magistrates should invariably be chosen from among lawyers who have been in politics! All I am trying to emphasize is that there is no objection in principle. In a remarkable work, The Machinery of Justice in England, Professor R. M. Jackson hits the nail on the head when he states:
(Text):
There has been no apparent connection in the last hundred years between the political antecedents of judges and the decisions of those judges. The point is primarily one of public confidence, that people may feel sure that those on the bench have been appointed for legal eminence and suitability and not for political reward or by way of disposing of an embarrassing political colleague.
(Translation):
Regardless of whether he has a political background, the magistrate of our time and place surely receives great help from his guarantees and privileges: he is shielded from governmental influences by his irremovability; he is protected from the snare of his own ambition by lack of promotion; and he is guarded from abuse of duty by his fixed salary and widow's pension. It was Sir Robert Walpole, that great leader of men, who defined gratitude as "the hope of new favours''; and he added that men "are less concerned with what they've got than with what they're going to get". That is just it; once a judge has been appointed, he has no further goal to reach out for. There is only one final reward which he seeks and which he can hope for, and that is the satisfaction of having done his duty-thus participating in that nobly social work that is the administration of justice.
Such, Mr. Chairman, were the thoughts that came to my mind when I reflected on the premature demise of the Hon. Justice Oscar Boulanger. My heartfelt sympathy goes out to his family, to his former electors in Belle-chasse, and to those in this house who knew him and shared my feelings for him. Let there be no doubt that he will forever remain, for us, a shining beacon of example and inspiration.
(Text):


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two things I would like to discuss under this vote and I think I will deal with them individually.
In the past few weeks there has been quite a bit of comment in the Canadian press to the effect that the Minister of Justice may have some thoughts in mind as to how he proposes to deal with the narcotics situation in Canada. There has been so much in
57071-3-191
Supply-Justice
the way of guesswork and surmise that I believe we would all appreciate any information the minister feels he can give us at this time on the narcotics situation in this country, in particular any views he may have as to the treatment of addicts.
I believe we all recognize the seriousness of the situation and I understand from the reports of the commission on narcotic drugs in the United Nations that it is estimated there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 5,000 addicts in Canada, of whom it is estimated over half are on the Pacific coast.
I believe we all recognize not only the seriousness of the narcotic addiction situation itself but the enormous cost that is involved, the millions of dollars spent on the illicit trade and also the millions of dollars involved because of the need of the addicts to get money in order to buy their supplies, to obtain which they resort, in most cases, to crime. I have always been somewhat intrigued in reading the journals of the commission of the United Nations on narcotic drugs to note how in so many countries they do not have the same type or degree of narcotic situation as we have here in Canada. I have one of those reports before me now, and it is interesting to note that in the United Kingdom, where I believe they have a population of some 45 million, they have a record of only 335 addicts, and all those addicts, so the report states, are receiving their drugs from licit sources by licit means.
This should give us some reason to pause and think. I will not say that I believe I know the answer. I know that a study of this situation was made by a committee of the other house a couple of years ago which brought down a comprehensive report. That committee had its views on the subject, but I am not going to say I agree with those views. I know that we have what is called the English system, and some people believe in it and others do not, including one high authority in British Columbia. I know, also, that something else was tried in the United States which has been approved by some and discounted by others. I am not going to put myself up as any kind of authority, but I have been interested in this problem, as was my late father, for many years, and there must be an answer somewhere.
At least we should be trying something new. Surely, we cannot continue any longer with the situation which exists at the present time. On one issue I am very definite. As far as the pusher is concerned, I believe he should be treated with all the severity of the law. By "pusher" I mean the pedlar, the man who makes a profit out of the narcotic hunger of the addict. I have no hesitation in saying that as far as these people are concerned I

Supply-Justice
would go even further than the present law prescribes as to penalties.


An hon. Member:: Capital punishment?


Harold Edward Winch: No, you are not going to catch me on that. I will go right up to life imprisonment. I also feel strongly that we would have some semblance of control if we could take the profit motive out of the illicit trade, and the only way to do that would be to recognize that addiction is an illness, and treat it as such. I have been interested in reading about the methods used in the majority of the countries of the world. In most cases, I find there is no compulsory registration of addicts nor is there compulsory notification of addiction. There is not even compulsory treatment of addiction. I find this rather strange, and I do think that perhaps we should give serious thought to requiring the compulsory notification of addicts, and registration of addiction so that there may be a record and so that cases of addiction can be followed up in order to try to persuade these people to take proper treatment and become rehabilitated. I do not see how this can be done unless there is some system of registration.
I am not going to say that there should be free drugs, because I admit I am a little afraid of the principle of free drugs, but I do say there might well be free treatment of addicts and this would mean the establishment of addiction treatment centres. As I said before, I have nothing conclusive in mind, nor is my mind set in any distinct channel as to how to make the best approach to this most serious problem in our country, but in view of the fact that I have read so many articles in the press of recent weeks commenting on the subject or trying to guess what is in the mind of the minister, I feel that he must have some thoughts on the problem at this stage and that even if he has not yet decided on any final policy he might now be in a position to give some interim information to the committee and make some recommendations as to how we might deal with this difficult problem.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps at this point I might reply to some of the observations which have been made in the committee today. I should like to express appreciation of the spirit of the remarks made by the hon. member for Megantic. He will recall the comments he made with regard to the appointment of judges and the choice of the best possible men to fill those positions. I also agree that there are certain areas in Canada where there is heavy pressure of work on existing judges and some definite indication that more appointments are required. He will recall that there is a resolution now on the order paper for an amendment of the judges act to

appoint additional judges in Ontario and New Brunswick, which are among the provinces which have made requests for increases. British Columbia also made a request for an increase, but I felt that since there had been the appointment of a new chief justice there it was desirable to let him have some time to assess the situation and make a report to us on the additional requirements.
With regard to Quebec, as the hon. member himself admitted, it is not possible for us to make appointments until the provincial government has provided for the positions. I would remind him, however, that the province did last year pass an order in council which enabled us to appoint four additional judges of the superior court. He will also recall it was the intention of the premier and attorney general to provide a special intermediary appeal court with six judges. This measure did not receive its final passage because I believe the premier indicated that he wished to consider it further, but I think it is a fairly clear indication that it is in the mind of the premier and attorney general of Quebec to increase the number of judges and make additional appointments in the province.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the aptness of the remarks just made by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) and I thank him for the kind words he had for me.
I fully share his opinion that lawyers elected to this house make a real contribution to good public administration and to the business of this country. To my mind, many of our laws would not be as good or as efficient if lawyers had had no hand in their preparation.
(Text):
I appreciate very much the words of the hon. member for Vancouver East. I know of his concern with this problem of narcotics and of the contribution and study that he has made to it. I wish that I could comply with his request for a definite statement. I will be as definite as I can but I am unable to be as definite as I would like to be as to our policy.
I can tell him, however, that the studies are progressing. We are not letting the matter drop, nor are we slackening in our intent or our desire to arrive at a solution, at least at a solution in our minds which we can present to parliament. I think with him that it is going to be very difficult for anyone to say that he has the complete answer even after he studies it. We must arrive at a decision, yes, but even then we would not want to be dogmatic about it. But we agree, I think, that we have to try something different when

the present system is not working. Studies are proceeding on an informal committee basis between my own departmental officials, the R.C.M.P. and the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
I hope, at any rate,-and I do not think it is too much to say-that we may be able to present a series of amendments or proposals to amend the Criminal Code next year. I hope it is not too much to say that we shall be able to present a proposal with regard to narcotics. At the same time, I would like to make one thing clear with regard to suggestions that I myself have made from time to time as to one possible solution of this problem.
I want to emphasize, first, that I have never gone beyond saying that this is one possible solution that we should look at. I have never said that this is the only solution, but I have referred to a possibility of establishing clinics for the treatment of convicted addicts. To judge by newspaper comments, some have taken from my remarks the idea that I was suggesting that we should establish institutions for the free distribution of drugs. This is the furthest thing from my thoughts. I think it would be a retrograde step. The idea of a convicted addict coming in and getting drugs handed to him to be taken by him, or taken away and used by him, without supervision, I never had in mind. I am quite sure that, as far as we can go, if a solution along this line is to be adopted, is to establish clinics.
There, as part of the condition upon which he may be released from penitentiary, the convicted addict might come in and be administered the minimum required dose under the supervision of a properly established and staffed medical clinic.
That, I think, would go a long way, if it is found to be feasible, toward this objective which the hon. gentleman and I, and I think everybody, have in mind. That is, taking the profit out of the drug traffic and also putting on a scientific and social basis our attitude toward addicts who, as the hon. gentleman says, are-while they may have committed crimes to obtain drugs and nearly all addicts have been guilty of crime-unfortunately ill. They are not only criminals, they are also ill.
But I think I must say to him that it would not be possible, as I see it, for this parliament to go beyond setting up those clinics for the treatment of convicted addicts. We could have no jurisdiction whatsoever to set up clinics to which persons who are self-confessed addicts might come. That would require action on the part of the provincial governments, or possibly some joint action between the dominion and the provinces. We ourselves have no jurisdiction to take power to treat
57071-3-191J
Supply-J ustice
people in this field, as I see it, unless it is as part of the criminal law.
Therefore, we cannot just set up clinics to which anyone could come who was not there because of his connection with crime or our jurisdiction over him under criminal law. I realize that may not be going as far or be quite as definite as the hon. gentleman would like me to go or to be; but, as I have said, for the reasons I have given, I cannot go farther. I want to emphasize again what I have said about the examination of this clinical treatment. It is only one of the possible solutions that we are studying.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, could I make one comment with respect to the question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East and the reply of the minister and say that I appreciate very much the attitude expressed just now by the minister. I know it is the one that he has had for some time. I also express the hope that when his studies and the studies of the officials of his department with respect to the matter of narcotic addiction have jelled and he is in a position to present to the house a plan for dealing with the question of narcotic addiction it will move in the direction of finding a solution.
I think personally that society's approach to narcotic addition in years past has been too static. We have not been attempting to assess the full implications or attempting to deal with the problem completely. I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the minister on the attitude he has taken before, and also the one that is expressed now, and wish him every success. I hope that when the plan is developed and into operation, whatever it might be, it will have every possibility of success so that those unfortunate people who because of some mental illness are addicted to narcotics will be able to fulfil some role in society and make some contribution to society which, unfortunately, because of our attitude now they are not able to do.


Harold Edward Winch: There is another matter under the administration vote which I would like to raise. I want to do it on the basis of the principle concerned and not the individual concerned although, of course, there will be a reference to an individual. It is on the basis of the principle that I am referring to the matter about which there were a number of questions on the order paper at the present session dealing with the cancellation of the parole of William Munavish in Vancouver.
As I say, I am going to use the individual to get to the principle. Here is a man who was convicted as an habitual criminal. Since he was convicted he must have been a pretty dangerous man.

Supply-J ustice


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the hon. gentleman permit a suggestion? If we could carry the first item, which is the general vote, we would find that the very next item has to do with the remission service, which is the proper place to discuss this and we would at least have passed the first item.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
158. Remission service, including $50,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies as may be approved by treasury board, $319,194.
Harold Edward Winch: You were determined you were going to get the first vote through by 4.30 were you not? We are very glad to co-operate at all times. As I say, here is a man who must have been a dangerous criminal because he has been with the Minister of Justice.


Frank Howard: The Minister of Justice?


Harold Edward Winch: I do not mean it in that sense. Yet, he must have reached a point of rehabilitation that was of a high standard because the remission service saw fit to release him on a ticket of leave.
In the penitentiary he was trained as a shoemaker. In Vancouver he started to work as a shoemaker. One day he was arrested on the ground that his ticket of leave had been cancelled. I am not going into the particulars. He was released because of a technicality which the Department of Justice and the remission service took care of within a couple of days and was promptly rearrested. This time there was no technicality and the man is now back in the penitentiary.
However, Mr. Munavish and his counsel maintained at that time that he did not know how he had broken his ticket of leave but the important point is that he had no opportunity to defend himself against the charge that he had broken the terms of his ticket of leave. Hon. members will recall that when this matter was raised last on the orders of the day the Minister of Justice informed the house that he doubted very much that the man did not know how he had broken his ticket of leave but he would see to it that he was informed. I want to say right now that the Minister of Justice certainly kept his word in that regard because a representative of the remission service on the west coast went to the penitentiary and informed Mr. Munavish why his ticket of leave had been cancelled.
Here is the principle, Mr. Chairman. First of all, under instructions from the Department of Justice legal counsel for Mr. Munavish was informed that only Mr. Munavish would be told the reasons why he was charged with breaking his ticket of leave and the instructions were such that not even 
the warden was to be present. The man's legal counsel was not to be present nor was permission given for any written statement of the charges which resulted in the ticket of leave being rescinded. Nobody but the remission service agent and Mr. Munavish knows what went on between them and we have to take the word of the one or the other.
Since that time I have received from the counsel for Mr. Munavish an affidavit made and sworn to by Mr. Munavish in which he denies all the allegations as they were given to him by the agent of the remissions branch when he met Mr. Munavish at the B.C. penitentiary on instructions of the Minister of Justice. He denies everything and says that he wants the opportunity to be able to defend himself.
Under circumstances of that nature what do we do? The Minister of Justice will admit that the only thing I could do when I received the affidavit from the man in the penitentiary and advice from his counsel was to raise the matter as I am now doing as an example of the principle of a man not having a right to a trial, shall I say, a right to be heard in his own defence when his ticket of leave is cancelled and he is returned to what could be, although we hope not, a life term in a penitentiary of this country.
To me there is something wrong. I know the view of the Minister of Justice and I want to thank him publicly for having invited me to his office, spending considerable time discussing this case and giving me information which I am not allowed to disclose because I was taken into the confidence of the minister. But having all that in mind, to me there is something wrong when a man, having been released on the authority of the remission service, has his ticket of leave cancelled without reasons being given, without an opportunity to defend himself, particularly when by affidavit he denies every charge made against him, and there is no procedure whatsoever that I know of unless the minister will use-is it sections 14 and 15?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Sections 11 and 12 of the Ticket of Leave Act.


Harold Edward Winch: Sections 11 and 12 in order to give a hearing. I feel strongly that something is required under circumstances of this nature. Of course, the matter is not all onesided. If the man demands such a hearing and the hearing is held and he is found guilty, then I think he will have to recognize that his rehabilitation in prison may take that much longer. But in the interests of justice I feel that fresh consideration should be given to the whole principle and policy as now carried out. I would not have spoken on this matter except that I did not dare

lose this opportunity, particularly when there perhaps may be something in the new parole bill of which notice has been given to the house. As it is now getting very close to 4.30 perhaps I had better sit down so that the minister will have time to say whether or not he is going to do anything along the lines I have suggested.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, again I appreciate the hon. gentleman's interest in this case and the point of view from which he approaches it. It is a point of view with which I have every sympathy but I think I can say, and I hope I will be able to convince him, that it is a point of view that is not applicable to cases of parole or ticket of leave as it is now called. It is not applicable because what the hon. gentleman is asking for is a formal charge and a formal trial. He said that if the man is convicted he might be sentenced to penitentiary for a further period of years and then everybody will know and it will be justified.
But the reason I say that the principle of the right to a trial enunciated by the hon. member is not applicable here is that the man is not charged with any offence. He is not charged with an offense for which he can be tried. What has happened is that the parole authority, in the conscientious discharge of the duties of its position of supervising this man who was out on ticket of leave, has reported that in its opinion the circumstances are such that the interests of society, and in this case I can also say the interests of the man, require his recommittal to penitentiary. It is not that an offence had been committed but that it felt, and the knowledge in its possession was such, that if the man were left at large another offence would be committed.
Remember that parolees-I will call them that although, strictly speaking, they are not to be called that until the new bill goes through-are not persons whose sentences have been commuted. They have not been made the subjects of diminution of their sentences by exercise of an act of clemency. Their sentences are still in existence. Suppose their sentence is 12 years and they are paroled at the end of 6 or 7 years. The sentence is not commuted but still has 5 or 6 years to run, as the case may be. It is simply that it is found that they are able to serve the balance of their sentences outside the penitentiary on condition that they submit to the supervision of a parole officer and report from time to time with varying degrees of frequency.
It is a licence. It is not a shortening of the sentence. The sentence is still there and
Supply-Justice
all that happens is that if the parole authority has reason to believe that the interests of society or the welfare of the man demand it, it so reports and the man may then be recommitted to the institution for the purpose of investigation, first of all as to whether in fact his parole should be suspended or revoked.
In this case, an investigation has taken place, and for the time being this parole has been revoked. This does not mean that the man may not be released on parole again.
There is, I know, more to say about this, Mr. Chairman, but what I have tried to do is state the broad principles upon which parole proceeds. I see it is now 4.30.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall item 158 carry?


Harold Edward Winch: I thought we were going to get more detail.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Does the minister wish to go into more detail on item 158?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I do not wish to do so. Unfortunately, perhaps, I am not able to tell the reasons why this man was re-committed. I think I am confined, therefore, to stating the principles applicable with regard to the method followed in his recommittal. I have no reason to ask that the item stand.


Harold Edward Winch: I have some other matters I want to raise about parole.


Mr. Fulion:: They could be discussed further on the parole bill.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Does the hon. member wish to have those matters discussed on the parole bill?


Harold Edward Winch: No, under item 158.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the leader of the house could throw some additional light on next week's business?


Howard Charles Green: There is a supply motion on Monday, and if we should get into supply on Monday we will continue with the estimates of the Department of Justice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The same would apply to Tuesday?


Howard Charles Green: No, if the supply motion carries over into Tuesday and we get into supply before the end of the day we would like to

Business of the House
go back on the Excise Tax Act and then the Customs Tariff resolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it the intention of the government to go on with the budget resolutions? It would be very helpful, particularly to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, if he could know.


Howard Charles Green: Probably, although I cannot be sure. I think there will have to be a request for interim supply.
At 4.35 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on August 1.



ANSWER TO QUESTION

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Has a report been submitted to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, or any other department of government, as an outcome of studies recently made by Canada and the United States, through the international joint commission, in reference to the possibility of harnessing the ebb and flow of tides in the bay of Fundy, referred to as the Passamaquoddy power project?
2.	If so, can the house expect such a report to be tabled before the end of the present session?
Answer by: Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
473.	Departmental administration, $2,438,212.
474.	District services-administration, $3,287,475.
475.	Veterans' welfare services, $3,494,262.
Treatment services-
476.	Operation of hospitals and administration, $48,362,061.
477.	Medical research and education, $324,000.
478.	Hospital construction, improvements, equipment and acquisition of land, $4,481,000.
479.	Prosthetic services-supply, manufacture and administration, $1,206,934.
480.	Veterans' bureau, $622,622.
481.	War veterans allowance board-administration, $153,112.
482.	Veterans insurance, $80,602.
War veterans allowances and other benefits-
483.	War veterans allowances, $58,066,500.
434. Assistance fund (war veterans allowances),
[Stage Direction]
485.	Treatment and other allowances, $2,400,000. Miscellaneous payments-
486.	To provide for payments to the last post fund; for the payment under regulations of funeral and cemetery charges, including the perpetual care of graves where applicable; for the cost and erection of headstones in Canada; for the maintenance of departmental cemeteries; for the maintenance of Canadian battlefields memorials in France and Belgium; for Canada's share of the expenditures of the imperial war graves commission; and for production of books of remembrance, $1,431,970.
487.	Grant to army benevolent fund, $8,000.
488.	Grant to Canadian legion, $9,000.
Canadian pension commission-
489.	Administration expenses, $2,519,695.
490.	Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation
Supply-Items Passed
order, P.C. 45/8848 of November 22, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act; and including Newfoundland special awards, $152,366,500.
491.	Gallantry awards-world war II and special force, $21,500.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
492.	To provide for the cost of administration of Veterans' Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement, $5,249,350.
493.	To provide for the upkeep of property, Veterans' Land Act, including engineering and other investigational planning expenses that do not add tangible value to real property; taxes, insurance and maintenance of public utilities, $61,550.
494.	To provide for the payment of grants to veterans settled on provincial lands in accordance with agreements with provincial governments under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act and payment of grants to veterans settled on dominion lands, in accordance with an agreement with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act, $215,000.
495.	To provide for the payment of grants to Indian veterans settled on Indian reserve lands under section 39 of the Veterans' Land Act, $100,000.
496.	To provide for the reduction of indebtedness to the director of soldier settlement of a settler in respect of a property in his possession, the title of which is held by the director, or such soldier settler loans which are administered by the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, by an amount which will reduce his indebtedness to an amount in keeping with the productive capacity of the property or his ability to repay his indebtedness under regulations approved by the governor in council, $1,000.
497.	To authorize and provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council, for necessary remedial work on properties constructed under individual firm price contracts and sold under the Veterans' Land Act to correct defects for which neither the veteran nor the contractor can be held financially responsible and for such other work on other properties as may be required to protect the interest of the director therein, $5,000.
Terminable services-
498.	Veterans benefits, including assistance and the training of certain pensioners under regulations approved by the governor in council, $1,050,000.
499.	To provide for the repayment in such amounts as the Minister of Veterans Affairs determines, not exceeding the whole of an amount equivalent to the compensating adjustment made under subsection (1) of section 13 of the War Service Grants Act or the payment made pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section 12 of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, where the person who made the compensating adjustment or payment does not receive benefits under the Veterans' Land Act or where, having had financial assistance under that act, he is deemed by the minister on termination of his contract or agreement under that act to have derived thereunder either no benefit or a benefit that is less than the amount of the compensating adjustment or payment made, $250,000.
517.	To authorize the operation of a revolving fund in accordance with the provisions of section 58 of the Financial Administration Act for the purpose of financing the manufacture of remembrance day poppies and wreaths, the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed, $350,000.
518.	To authorize the making of a loan by the Minister of Veterans Affairs to William J. Edwards, a veteran of world war I, in the amount of $1,000, such loan to be repayable on demand by the minister and to be made on the security of a
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
mortgage acceptable to him, executed by the veteran and his wife and registered as a first charge on a parcel of land held by the veteran and his wife as joint tenants and described in the land registry office, New Westminster, British Columbia, as lot 13, block 14, northwest quarter of section 11, township 1, plan 14124, New Westminster district, $1,000.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
519.	To provide for protection of security-soldier settlement, and refunds of surplus to veterans, $4,550.
520.	To provide for purchase of land and permanent improvements; cost of permanent improvements to be effected; removal of encumbrances; stock and equipment; and for protection of security under the Veterans' Land Act, $14,827,250.
Treatment services-
652.	Operation of hospitals and administration- further amount required, $1,183,380.
War veterans allowances and other benefits-
653.	Treatment and other allowances-further amount required, $300,000.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
654.	To authorize and provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council, for necessary remedial work on properties constructed under individual firm price contracts and sold under the Veterans' Land Act to correct defects for which neither the veteran nor the contractor can be held financially responsible and for such other work on other properties as may be required to protect the interest of the director therein-further amount required, $4,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
157. Departmental administration including annual contribution of $200 to the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada, $592,290.

[Stage Direction]
Headquarters administration, national police services and training establishments-
373.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $8,131,933.
374.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $868,099.
Land and air services-
375.	Operation and maintenance of divisions, $30,320,042.
376. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $4,346,956.
Marine services-
377.	Operation and maintenance, $1,539,396.
378. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $830,588.
379.	Grant to the Canadian association of chiefs of police, $500.
380.	Grant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police veterans' association, $300.
Pensions and other benefits-
381.	Pensions to families of members of the mounted police who have lost their lives while on duty, as detailed in the estimates, $15,162.
382.	Government's contribution to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension account, $1,189,879.
Headquarters administration, national police services and training establishments-
614.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $100,000.
615.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,works,	land	and	equipment-further	amount
required, $15,000.
Land and air services-
616.	Operation and maintenance of divisions- further amount required, $230,000.
617.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,works,	land	and	equipment-further	amount
required, $1,969,781.
Marine services-
618.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $36,000.
619.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,works,	land	and	equipment-further	amount
required, $613,700.
Pensions and other benefits-
620.	Government's contribution to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension account-further amount required, $388,728.

Water Resources-Proposed Chicago Diversion


[Stage Direction]
Useful conversations between United States and Canadian officials were held in Ottawa on July 7, 1957 on the subject of the sanitation problems which gave rise to proposed legislation for a three-year temporary diversion of 1,000 cubic feet of water per second from the great lakes system and on the subject of studies to be carried out under the proposed legislation.
The Canadian government understands that if such legislation is enacted these sanitation studies will not be limited to evaluating the effects of dilution but will also include consideration of all possible measures for dealing with waste disposal facilities at Chicago. Such measures would include:
(a)	complete separation of storm sewers from the domestic sewerage system or expansion of the existing treatment facilities to serve a total combined flow;
(b)	treatment of organic wastes in industrial plants before discharging these effluents into the sewerage system;
(c)	chlorination of effluent before discharge into the Illinois waterway; and
(d)	artificial aeration of the waterway.
The treatment of sewage in the Chicago
area is, of course, a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of the competent legislative bodies within the United States. It is understood that present treatment of waste represents a vast improvement over conditions which existed in former years and that
under the present day uses of the water the waste is more a nuisance than a menace to the public health in the area.
In considering the economics of alternative methods of improved waste disposal, it is assumed that full consideration will be given to the economic harm which may be done to navigation and hydro-electric generation in both countries by extended use of dilution methods.
It is not possible to give a firm undertaking to provide flows of a particular volume through the existing Long Lac and Ogoki diversions to the great lakes basin during the three-year period envisaged by proposed United States legislation. However, if it were possible to offset part of the effects of the Chicago diversion by inflows from the Albany basin in Canada, it would be equitable that an equivalent amount of water should remain available for use in hydroelectric power generation by the Ontario interests at St. Marys falls, Niagara falls and in the international section of the St. Lawrence river until the effects of the proposed temporary diversion will have ceased to be felt in the great lakes system.
All rights under the provisions of the boundary waters treaty of 1909 are specifically reserved.
The Canadian Embassy
Washington,
January 6, 1958.
(Handed to the State Department 4:30 p.m. Jan. 6, 1958)
192
[Stage Direction]
Monday, August 4, 1958