1958-01-10

Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce to the house that the government intends to introduce an amendment to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act during the next session of parliament to repeal section 6 (2) of the act, which deals with conditions relating to the start of the shared program. This section reads as follows:
No contributions shall be paid under this act until at least six provinces, containing at least one-half of the population of Canada, have entered into an agreement and the provincial law in relation to those provinces is in force.
It is of course necessary to specify the time at which federal contributions can be made. Therefore a new section will be proposed which will permit any province that has signed an agreement with the federal government and has a provincial law in force to receive federal contributions on or after July 1, 1958.
This amendment will accomplish two purposes:
1.	It establishes an effective date for the start of the program, and
2.	The start of the program in any one province will no longer be dependent upon the action in at least five other provinces.
This announcement will allow the provinces concerned to plan their budgets now being or about to be considered, without any uncertainty as to the federal government's stand in this regard. I am confident that at least three or four of our provinces will try to be ready by July 1, 1958, and that most, if not all, of the remainder of the provinces will soon have plans in operation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker,
I think the house and the country will welcome this announcement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, particularly in view of the fact that although now more than six months have passed since the government came to power, no agreements have been signed with any of the provinces. This
kind of action, as my hon. friend well knows, is very necessary in order to permit provinces like Ontario to proceed with their plans.
I would now ask the minister if he does not propose to make any announcement about the government's intention, pursuant to its election pledges, of including tuberculosis and mental illness, without any strings attached such as those laid down by the Prime Minister at the dominion-provincial conference, when he said the government was prepared to include these particular provisions but that any moneys paid out by the federal government, namely a total of $68 million, would have to be deducted from any further fiscal grants made by the federal government to the provinces.


Mr. Fleming:: He did not say that.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: No.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The Prime Minister at the dominion-provincial conference did make an announcement, but I may say we are not prepared at this moment to make any further announcement in that respect.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I say that although we too would like to see action in the matter of including tubercular and mental cases within the provisions of this act, the only word we wish to say at this moment is that we welcome the announcement the minister has made today.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I would like to ask the
minister a question for the purpose of clarification-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we have followed a very salutary practice after a minister's statement has been made on motions of hearing from only one representative of each group in the house, and of reserving other questions until the question period.

On the orders of the day:


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. If I heard him correctly he said this amendment he referred to would be introduced at the next session of parliament. Is it not true that he previously informed us that it would be introduced at this session of parliament?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think I had intimated that we were going to attempt to have the amendment proposed at this session, but we find now that this will not be possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister if in view of the state of balance of the parties in this house it is not a rather arrogant assumption on the part of the government to assume that this is any assurance to the provinces that something will be done in the next session?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Apparently the government considers parliament of no importance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is rather in the nature of an assertion than a question, and is not in order at this stage.


Donald Methuen Fleming: An untrue assertion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not regard it as reasonable to assume that any government in power in the next few months would make that amendment?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Why yes, of course, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, yesterday at five p.m. the books were opened on an issue of $300 million of C.N.R. bonds guaranteed by the Canadian government. This is the largest bond issue in the history of the Canadian National Railways. I am happy to report that the issue was heavily oversubscribed and the books were closed immediately. Fractional allotments are now being made against the subscriptions.
This firm expression of public confidence in Canada's financial strength is deeply gratifying and I am sure it will also be pleasing to all members of this house.



REQUEST FOR PROVISION OF LOAN FUND FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the declaration made by the Prime Minister at Brock-ville on May 8, 1957, in favour of granting loans to small business, and also in view of the

deplorable situation in which small manufacturers and small retailers actually find themselves, my question is this. Is it true that the government has decided at last to grant loans to small business?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this matter in reply to a question yesterday. I think my hon. friend was not in the house at the time. If he will look at Hansard he will see the answer.


Wilfrid Lacroix: May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I understood from the answer given yesterday in connection with granting loans to small businesses that a decision had not yet been reached so far as government policy is concerned. May I ask the minister if we may expect a decision soon?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think my answer yesterday was full and complete. Whenever there is anything further to announce my hon. friend may be sure it will be announced in the house in the regular and proper manner.



REPORTED DECREASE IN COST OF LIVING INDEX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister prepared to say whether the slight reduction in the cost of living index recently is the result of government policy?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member seriously puts that question forward for information, but rather to draw attention to it.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 245, to amend the Criminal Code (corporal punishment).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Harold Edward Winch: 
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Algoma East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a letter from Premier Bulganin of the Soviet union and, if so, what action the government proposes to take with regard to it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, about 9.30 this morning I had delivered to me a rather lengthy note from Marshal Bulganin, chairman of the council of ministers of the U.S.S.R. It comprises some 29 pages, and having regard to the fact that there was a cabinet meeting this morning I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that there has been no time as yet to do more than peruse the note. It will be considered during the week end, and I hope to be in a position at the beginning of the week to have something to say in this regard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask if not a supplementary question at least a related question, and ask the Prime Minister how he is getting along with the earlier note of Mr. Bulganin which arrived early in December.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is fully informed in that regard. The question as to the nature of the replies of the various NATO nations was considered on Wednesday by the council in Paris. Consideration as to particulars, and also as to the general purport of the answers, is being continued when the council reopens this afternoon.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, apparently two further notes have been received. Was there not a note received after the statement issued following the meeting of the supreme soviet of the U.S.S.R. in December, containing the seven points which have been widely publicized? As far as my reading goes I understand that these seven points were also sent to the government. It seems that there are three communications. Has the government dealt with any of those three? Was one addressed to the government or to parliament? What is the situation regarding the seven points passed at the meeting of the supreme soviet in, I think, December?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my information is that there were just the two notes, and in addition there was a note of felicitation to Canadians in general as of January 1.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question in view of the reply given a few moments ago about the NATO meeting, in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Algoma East. The Prime Minister will recall that a few days ago, some time before Christmas, I asked if the reply would be collective or by individual countries, and the Prime Minister replied that it would be by individual countries. Are we now to understand that the reply will be a collective one, or is this meeting taking place at NATO simply to enable countries to be better informed of the position of each other, and the replies will be individual?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is no incongruity in the two answers. The position of affairs is this. If necessary, in co-operation we desire to have some degree of uniformity, while maintaining the right of each to reply as it will.



COLOMBO PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce relating to grain shipped to Colombo plan countries, following the announcement made in the house the other day. Would the minister say how early the grain can be moved and whether it can be moved through the Atlantic and eastern ports as one means of helping to equalize delivery quotas in western Canada and as a method of improving employment, since western facilities are now being extensively used?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, one of the
reasons for making the announcement the other day was to expedite the movement of the wheat to India prior to the completion of the financial arrangements. Second, part of the understanding with India in taking the 400,000 tons that they are prepared to accept was that approximately half of that amount would be shipped out of Atlantic ports; and that movement will commence just as quickly as the Indian officials are able to make the necessary arrangements.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might ask the minister whether the agreement to take half through the Atlantic ports means that half will go through Vancouver, or may it be possible that an even larger proportion will go through the eastern facilities since the western facilities are now being used almost to capacity.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Churchill: That has been considered, but it cannot all be moved at once, and this early movement of the first half will be through the eastern ports.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Lewry (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and bring it to the special attention of the Minister of Finance as well. Is the minister aware of the fact that on a pension cheque stub of the Canadian National Railways which I have just sent over to him for examination there appears in very fine print the words "Printed in U.S.A."? Is it necessary for a Canadian public utility to have its employees' pension cheques printed outside of Canada?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of why this particular pension cheque stub was printed in the United States, but I will make inquiries of the management of the Canadian National Railways and give an answer as soon as I receive one.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In answer to a question of mine last night about one Per Holting, a Canadian citizen who was forcibly evicted from Canada because he landed in Winnipeg from an S.A.S. plane, the Minister of Justice referred me to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell me if negotiations are under way with S.A.S. to obviate any other such incident?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. I might say that no negotiations are under way at the present time, but a general review is to be undertaken of air transport agreements with foreign countries.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. L. Morris (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue, notice of 
which I have given him. Can the minister now advise whether a firm date has been determined by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the commencement of regular microwave relay television transmission over CBHT, Halifax?


Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave me notice of his intention to ask this question just as I came into the house. Speaking from memory, but I am reasonably certain that my memory is correct in this particular matter, I can say that arrangements have been made for the commencement of regular telecast programs over the station in question on February 2. The microwave connection will then have been finally tested, and barring some unexpected technical difficulties they will commence regular telecasts on February 2, and possibly even a short time before that.


Edmund Leverett Morris: May I ask a supplementary question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister tell us when they will commence in Newfoundland?


Edmund Leverett Morris: May I ask a supplementary question? In view of the minister's beneficence this morning, can he tell us whether the C.B.C. will also be requested to provide live television transmission of two early entertainments, the Liberal convention and the Durelle fight?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That, of course, is not a frivolous question!


George Clyde Nowlan: In view of the sporting nature of both the events and the matter which they have in common, arrangements have been made for the telecasting of those events although the microwave set-up will not have been completely and finally checked. It is obvious to all those who know this-certainly I did not until recently-the microwave installations are already in. They are being tested and checked every day. The Bell Telephone Company will not certify them as completely satisfactory until February 2; but barring the possibility of some technical difficulty the C.B.C. intend to use them for the telecasting of the Liberal convention next week and also for the fight which unfortunately has been postponed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might direct a question to the Prime Minister.

In view of the fact that the government is now announcing details of legislation for the next session, will the Prime Minister reconsider the answer he gave yesterday and tell the house whether the legislation making grants to the Atlantic provinces will make those grants for the current fiscal year or whether they will be available only for the next fiscal year. As I am sure the Prime Minister will appreciate, this is a matter of great importance to the Atlantic provinces.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think in the next two days the answer to my hon. friend's question will be not only apparent but complete.



MARITIME FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say when the Maritime Freight Rates Act will be revised to help Atlantic provinces producers sell their products in central Canada, as promised by him at College Bridge, New Brunswick, on May 28, 1957?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member well knows that matters of this kind are always under consideration by this government, whose whole aim is to do good for the people of this country.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, of which I have given him notice. In view of the fact that at Penticton traffic has increased considerably during the past year, and in view of the willingness of Canadian Pacific Airlines to fly larger aircraft into the Penticton airport in the near future, would the government, when it causes the airport runway to be strengthened next year, extend the present runway an additional 1,200 feet, thereby making the over-all length of same 7,200 feet?


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. This request will receive the usual study and consideration which requests of this kind always receive from my departmental officials.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: May I
ask a supplementary question. Would the same consideration be given to an application respecting Castlegar airport?


George Harris Hees: If one is received, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Borden commission on energy still free, in pursuance of its terms of reference as announced on October 15, to consider public ownership as one of the special measures that might be taken in relation to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited in order to safeguard the interests of Canadian producers or consumers of gas, or has this possibility been closed out by the negative statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the powers of the Borden commission are set forth in the order in council establishing that commission. Those powers comprise several sections and will be exercised by the commission in accordance with the application of the sections in question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: the Borden commission recommends public ownership of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, will the government give consideration to that recommendation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is too experienced in the practice of the house to expect an answer to a question as hypothetical as that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Only because I know the Prime Minister.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can he advise the house whether United States aircraft carry hydrogen and atomic bombs over Canada in moving to European and Alaskan bases?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a somewhat similar question on November 27 regarding the carriage of live bombs by United

Inquiries of the Ministry States planes across Canadian territory. I pointed out at that time that United States aircraft carrying live bombs across Canada were required to obtain prior permission from the Minister of National Defence before such aircraft could fly with that type of bomb. The same thing would apply to nuclear bombs if the United States desired to transport any such weapons through Canadian air space.
There have been occasions when requests have been made for the passage of nuclear weapons, in which cases every precaution has been taken to see that these weapons are inactivated and that there is no danger to Canadian lives or property. I do not think it is advisable to draw a distinction between atomic and hydrogen bombs.


William James Henderson: I take it from the minister's answer that, with permission, hydrogen and atomic bombs have been carried across Canada.


George Randolph Pearkes: I did not say that. I referred to nuclear weapons. I said it was undesirable to draw a distinction between atomic and hydrogen bombs.


William James Henderson: Then do I take it from the minister's answer that nuclear weapons have been carried across Canada by United States aircraft with the permission of the Canadian government?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is correct.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Is
the minister aware that public statements have been made recently to the effect that, regardless of what precautions may be taken, an accident is possible?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am not aware that an accident is possible. I do not believe it is probable because, as I said, every precaution is taken to inactivate these weapons before they are carried across Canadian territory. I am assured there is no risk to Canadian lives or property as the result of an accident occurring to aircraft carrying such weapons, which accident would be the direct result of the fact that such weapons were being carried by the aircraft.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I
have a supplementary question. I hate to bother the minister, but can he give me a more definite explanation of the meaning of the word "undesirable" in the context in which he used it?


George Randolph Pearkes: I beg the hon. member's
pardon?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister used the word "undesirable" in order to distinguish between this and that. Could he give a more definitive explanation of the meaning of the word "undesirable" in the way in which he used it?


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not know that I used
the word "undesirable"; did I?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: Oh, yes; undesirable to draw a distinction between the hydrogen and the atom bomb. I question whether it is desirable or in the public interest to define the difference between the hydrogen and the atom bomb in this connection.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
Minister of National Defence would care to amplify somewhat the statement he made when he referred to the permission that is being granted for the transport of nuclear weapons above Canadian territory. Is this permission being granted only for specific movements, or are any of those permits that are being given on a continuing basis? The strategic air command, we understand, has 1,000 planes in the air; and does the possibility exist that these nuclear weapons are in the air above us at all times?
I think the minister knows what I am after. Is it for the movement from one place to another on a particular day, or is there a continuing permit in effect?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I think the
short answer is that there is no blanket authority given. Every particular case makes application for the flight. There is no blanket or continuing authority at all. Each specific request is dealt with at the time.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister now say whether, as a result of requests from the stricken area, the government of Canada has been able to find any way by which assistance can be given those in the Peace river country whose crops are a total loss? I am speaking now of assistance in addition to what can be extended to them under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: As I think the hon. member is well
aware, and as I have pointed out in letters to the minister of agriculture of Alberta, to boards of trade and so on, the matter of direct relief as far as the farmers in the Peace river district are concerned who have lost their crops is the primary responsibility of the municipalities and the provincial government of Alberta. As I have pointed out

in these letters, if the province of Alberta considers that a disaster has taken place which it is beyond their financial ability to handle, they then can make application to the dominion government in connection with the matter. But until we get an application of that kind from the government of Alberta we are in no position to move into that Peace river country with direct relief measures, and it is constitutionally improper for us to do so.


Solon Earl Low: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I should like the minister to know that I was not asking him to move into the Peace river country. My question was simply whether he had been able to find any means by which the federal government could grant additional assistance where it is so urgently required. That was the important thing.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The only means by which we have been able to assist have already been taken, namely by the Prairie Farm Assistance Act measures and through increasing the quota so the grain which was harvested up there in a damp condition can be shipped out for drying. Also, of course, that means that the people up there who have grain have been able to deliver more than have people in other parts of the country.



REPORTED PURCHASE BELOW FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Onl.):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, and I am sure that members in all parts of the house welcome the minister back following his illness. My question is this Has the minister been advised that eggs are being purchased in the London district at below the floor price? If so, will the government purchase the surplus, as has been done in the past?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have not been advised of any circumstances of this kind. I shall have the matter looked into immediately. We are of course prepared, through the prices support board, to buy all eggs which are offered at the support price. In the period before Christmas we had bought a considerable number of eggs in western Canada, but the price of eggs in eastern Canada up to the end of December was above the support price and none had been offered to us. We are, of course, prepared to take all that are offered at the support price.


Major James William Coldwell: May
I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister explain why it is that at points in 96698-1984
Inquiries of the Ministry western Canada this situation prevails? I am referring now to Rosetown, from which I had a letter a few days ago stating that eggs in the neighbourhood were being turned in at 20 cents and 25 cents a dozen. How can that occur if we have a proper floor price?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Without knowing the exact circumstances I could not say exactly what is the answer to that particular question. But in most cases the answer is that the eggs referred to are not grade A large eggs. They may be grade B eggs or they may be grade A medium or they may be some other grade of eggs. There is quite a price differential between grade A large eggs which are at the support price of 38 cents and these other eggs.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister has given any consideration to changing the act in order to require the packing companies and others by law to pay not less than the floor price as set out in government policy?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think that is a matter of changing the act. Certainly I am taking every means possible to insure that those dealers who offer eggs to us in the support board have paid the proper price to the farmers. In any case I can discover in which the farmer has not been paid the proper price, we will not purchase the eggs from the dealer at the support price.



WESTERN CANADA-ALLOCATION OF BOX CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister give the house the assurance that progress is being made with respect to the allocation of box cars and shipping orders in western Canada so that as we come to the end of the crop year there will be more justice and equality in the distribution of box cars and shipping orders among western farmers?


Gordon Minto Churchill: In reply to that question, which also contains an opinion, I would say the answer is yes.


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melfort):: have a supplementary question. As a result of the many complaints with regard to the shortage of box cars at C.P.R. points in western Canada, has the minister brought this problem to the attention of the company in an attempt to correct this serious and unsatisfactory condition?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: If that is the case, it will be done.


Edward George McCullough: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister give the house the number of points that are still on the initial quota and the one-bushel quota in western Canada?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That appears to me to be more a question for the order paper than one for an oral answer.


Edward George McCullough: I would like to direct another question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister give assurance that at the end of this crop year some plan will be undertaken and assurance given that in cases where there is not a proper distribution of box cars or shipping orders so as to equalize the quotas, special circumstances will be taken into consideration so this year quotas will be allocated on an equitable basis?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the hon. member recognizes the fact that at the end of the crop year, which is July 31, this government will be in power or will have been returned to power, and his suggestion with regard to box cars will be given very serious consideration.



INQUIRY AS TO INTERIM PAYMENT ON 1956-57 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It arises out of a very grave financial crisis prevalent in the prairie provinces amongst grain producers. Can the minister say whether the interim payment on the 1956-57 wheat crop will be made at an early date?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That question is important to the farming community in the prairie provinces. I can assure the hon. member that it is under consideration.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister give them some indication as to whether or not payment will be made within a few days or a few weeks? I think the matter has some urgency.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It has some urgency, but I am not in a position today to say just what the date will be.



U.S. RESTRICTIONS ON CANADIAN IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry Joseph Murphy: I should like to address a question to the Prime

Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement accusing the former federal government of not being strong enough in resisting the efforts of United States politicians to have United States imports of Canadian fish restricted, can he tell the house what representations are being made by this government in the matter and how they are being made?


John George Diefenbaker: That question has been answered on a number of occasions in recent days, respecting the attitude on the part of the United States in connection with importations, and I have nothing further to add.



PROVISION OF CREDIT FOR POLAND AND SPAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Peter Stefura (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Have negotiations been completed for the sale of wheat to Spain and Poland, or are they still continuing?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The negotiations have not been completed, Mr. Speaker.



REPORTED DECISION TO INCREASE DIVERSION TO UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to endeavour to divert more than 15 per cent of Canadian purchases in the United States to the United Kingdom, as was reported in yesterday's press by one of the members of the Canadian trade mission to Britain?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know what the minister to whom this question is addressed thinks of the question, but it seems to me it is hardly one that can be dealt with on the orders of the day.


An hon. Member:: Why not?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Justice whether he is in a position to answer the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver East?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I am not aware of the question to which the hon. member refers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Transport undertook to draw it to the minister's attention.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Justice was in the house yesterday. No; I beg the hon. member's pardon. I was attending a Senate committee during question period.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps if the hon. gentleman would look at page 3055 of Hansard,-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will tell me what the question is, since he displays such great interest in it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a rather long question, sir, but it relates to the application for citizenship of Alfonze Bardos, about which the Globe and Mail complained in the same kind of terms in which it used to complain when I was minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Now I understand the reason for the hon. gentleman's interest in this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is more than just natural curiosity-


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman has asked a question. I do not know whether he merely wanted to get his question on the record or whether he really wanted an answer. If he is interested in the answer he might give me an opportunity to reply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be delighted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It has always been felt in cases such as this that it would not be in the public interest or even in the interest of the individual concerned to reveal the details of the reasons for rejection.


Some hon. Members:: We have heard that before.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The whole policy regarding rejection and the refusal of information is under review, so I am not able to say anything more at this stage.


Mr. Marler:: A reasonable facsimile of other statements.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour, as the statistics usually given out from government departments as to the number of applicants for unemployment insurance are now delayed, if he
Inquiries of the Ministry is yet in a position to tell the house what are the actual registrations and what are the alleged unemployment figures? If my hon. friend is not in a position to do that today I would understand, because I have not given him notice; but I do think there is considerable delay in giving this information.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order. Are these statements?


Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):: In answer to the hon. member's question I should say this, that the latest figures for registrations at the unemployment insurance offices across Canada, as of December 26, total 698,153. Of course the hon. member will understand that is not a true picture of unemployment in Canada. The latter figure is compiled by the dominion bureau of statistics and is expected to be issued, for the month of December, somewhere in the middle of January.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: May I ask a supplementary question. These figures are as of December 10?


Michael Starr: December 26.


Major James William Coldwell: May
I ask the minister if he has the figure for December 26 last year, or a date approximately in that neighbourhood?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: About half.


Major James William Coldwell: Because 698,000 seems a very large figure indeed.


Michael Starr: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The figure I gave a moment ago to the hon. member for Essex East compares with the figure for December 27, 1956, which was 387,327. I wish to point out, however, that there are fishermen added this year who were not eligible for unemployment insurance last year.


An hon. Member:: They were unemployed just the same.


Hazen Robert Argue: 300,000 of them?


Michael Starr: And there are also larger registrations in respect of married women because of the regulations being revoked. In addition there is also seasonal unemployment.


Mr. Sinclair:: And of course the Tory government is in power.


Michael Starr: Also, Mr. Speaker, there is the extension of seasonal benefits from December 1 to May 15 where ordinarily they would not get on the rolls until January 1.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to ask a supplementary question. Would the minister tell us how many fishermen are registered?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not those figures; they have not been compiled.
3128	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister get the figures?


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: May I
direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. He may not have the figures available and may want to wait until tomorrow to give a full answer. A while ago he stated there were some 698,000 unemployed. Could he tell us of that number how many have exhausted their unemployment assistance and, although they are still now unemployed, are now receiving no unemployment assistance?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the figure I quoted of 698,153 applies to those who are registered for unemployment insurance. I have no other figures available but, as I pointed out earlier, the dominion bureau of statistics figure which gives you these particulars as to who are unemployed and seeking work will be out some time during the middle of January for the period between November and December.



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINE-INVESTIGATION OF WALK-OUT EAST OF PORT ARTHUR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell us what barriers, if any, prevent action being taken by his department in the walk-out affecting 500 men on the trans-Canada pipe line, a situation which has been going on for one week?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the walk-out is not in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the employers. Consequently, because of that fact the federal government cannot interfere in this walk-out, and the matter must be settled between the employer and employees in accordance with the collective agreement.


Douglas Mason Fisher: If either of the parties affected, the contractors or the contracting union, should appeal to the Minister of Labour for conciliation, could he intervene?


Mr. Speaker:: That is purely hypothetical, [ suggest, and we might pass on to a more definite question.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Port Arthur with regard to the strike on the trans-Canada pipe line. Is the minister aware that the collective agreement to which he referred


has a basic wage rate 27 cents an hour lower than the basic rates in the area where the people are working.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the minister to say that the matter is not one within his jurisdiction and responsibility, and it seems to me that unless he has other views the question is not in order.


Mr. Arnold Pelers (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Port Arthur on this matter. Is it not true that these contracts are yellow dog contracts that were signed in this particular case, and is it not also true that the offices of the Minister of Labour are used and will be used to conciliate matters between employees and employers to facilitate the completion of that slashing job in that particular area?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the facilities of the labour department come into being upon request when there is a dispute between an employer and employees in the negotiation of a contract, but in this case there is a collective agreement which has not run out. It is in force, and the strike is illegal.



REPORTED REFUSAL OF FARM WORK BY UNEMPLOYED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Melville):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Was the statement which was put out by the farm forum early in the week correct, to the effect that some 900 persons had applied for positions in Toronto and a number of them were offered farm jobs but none of these offers were accepted? If that is the condition which prevails in Toronto or elsewhere, has the government any plans to deal with it, because there is a shortage of labour on farms. Why cannot this labour be obtained?


Michael Starr: I am glad to receive this information from the hon. gentleman, because I was not aware of it. Now that the matter has been brought to my attention I will look into it to see what are the circumstances.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Solon Earl Low: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, and I want to assure him that I have no desire at all to put him on

the spot. However, an answer to this question on the record would be most useful all around.
Officials of the United States tax department in Washington have been making the claim that the government is unconcerned about the efforts of the tax department in the United States to impose income tax on a purely Canadian company. Is this claim correct?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DEDUCTIONS TO FARM WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the shortage of farm labour and widespread unemployment, can the minister say whether or not in the administration of the changes in the Income Tax Act allowing for deduction of the cost of living while away from domicile for construction workers, this provision will be applied to farm workers? The minister will readily see the discrimination-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has completed his question, and I would ask him not to engage in argument.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the government has no power to exceed the terms of legislation enacted by parliament. The amendment to which my hon. friend refers and which was given effect from January 1, 1957, applies to construction workers. This matter was fully discussed in committee of the whole on clause 1 of the bill.


Edward George McCullough: A supplementary question then, Mr. Speaker. Would farm workers who partially at least are construction workers, in a sense, be classified as coming within the jurisdiction of the amendment?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if they are construction workers they will qualify.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, two days ago the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie) raised a question in the house and then he changed the
Inquiries of the Ministry wording of that question yesterday. I should now like to give him the answer.
When I answered yes to the first part of the hon. member's question in the reply I gave on Wednesday I had understood him to refer to clearing rather than completion. My answer therefore still holds good and is a correct answer for the question as it was amended yesterday morning. I should perhaps mention, however, that the tenders have been called by the Department of Public Works which will be supervising the work on behalf of my department.
In so far as the second part of the hon. member's question is concerned, I might explain that there are three projects which make up our special program for northern winter employment. One of these in the Fort Smith area will provide employment for about 65 men, and will be carried out by my department. All employees will be recruited locally, and local departmental equipment will be used.
The other two projects, employing in total some 300 men, will be supervised by the Department of Public Works. Full consultation is now going on with the Department of Labour, and it is expected that a substantial number of positions will be filled locally. In any event, arrangements are being made to use local labour and local equipment to the full extent practicable. The two projects in question are the clearing work on the Fort Providence to Rae section of the Mackenzie highway at an estimated cost of $500,000, and clearing work on the Peace Point-West Boundary road in Wood Buffalo park at an estimated cost of $475,000.


Mr. Lesage:: May I ask the minister if there are not some large forestry operations going on south of the Fort Smith area, in Wood Buffalo park?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If the hon. member is referring to the timber operations at Wood Buffalo park, yes; they are going on at full speed. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the provinces are reacting very favourably to our winter work program, and I hope to be able to make an announcement very shortly on this matter which I hope will be of interest to the house.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. On January 9 the city of Hull passed a resolution, following one of
3130	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry July 23, asking for the demolition of a building at the corner of Maisonneuve and Reboul streets which has been expropriated. Could the minister tell us when the work of demolition will begin, because the city has some projects to carry out around this corner?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: I will take the question as notice.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State when we may expect an announcement of government policy with regard to the removal of section 55 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, this is part of the problem under consideration now about which I spoke when the estimates of my department were before the committee. The survey which is being undertaken by the civil service commission and by the government has not as yet reached the stage where a decision can be made.



UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister of health and welfare if the government has yet reached an agreement with the government of Ontario about unemployment assistance.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And has agreement been reached with the other three provinces which did not have agreements? What is the position of the negotiations?


Jay Waldo Monteith: There has been an indication as far as Nova Scotia is concerned that that province is considering entering.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In recent weeks there have been deposited in some post offices envelopes containing information as to how applicants for unemployment insurance may


make their claims by mail. Is it the intention of the department to extend the circulation of these letters to all post offices where mail order claims are made?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Michael Starr: I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear all the hon. member's question. I wonder if he would mind repeating it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was not a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that perhaps the hon. member might put it on the order paper, unless he feels it is necessary or urgent to have an answer today. We have spent considerable time on questions.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO SHARING OF TAX REVENUES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wilfrid Lacroix: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister or perhaps to the Minister of Finance, who may be better informed on the question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Withdraw. He would not be better informed, but the question may more properly be directed to him.


Wilfrid Lacroix: In view of the declaration made at the last dominion-provincial conference, and in view of the wishes expressed by the different provincial governments and their anxiety to secure an answer, my question is this. Is it true that the government has decided at last what share of the tax dollar will be received by the provinces and the municipalities?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, whenever a decision is reached on that matter and it is proper to make it public it will certainly be made public in the house at the time if the house is sitting. These are all matters that are under discussion in the course of the proceedings of the dominion-provincial conference, as I think my hon. friend realizes.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Combines Investigation Act-
179. Restrictive trade practices commission, $79,465.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, is the minister prepared this morning to give us a rather comprehensive statement on the work of the combines investigation branch?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the details of
this item are found at page 249. I do not suppose the hon. member wishes me merely to review the composition of the branch. As far as its activities are concerned I can give the following information. As of January 10, that is today, there are 21 inquiries under way which compare with a total of 20 as of March 31, 1957, 17 on March 31, 1956, 14 on March 31, 1955, 13 on March 31, 1954, 14 on March 31, 1953 and eight on March 31, 1952. It will therefore be seen that the number of inquiries under way is approximately the same as last year and that there has been a small annual increase in the number of inquiries handled and in the activities of this branch.
At the present time there are two prosecutions in progress and there are also two cases in which reports have been received from the commission and to which consideration is now being given as to whether or not prosecution should be ordered. There is one case in the hands of counsel for prosecution.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, would the
minister care to give any indication to the committee as to whether careful consideration is being given to a revision of the penalties under the act? I have noted on more than one occasion that judges who are trying those who have been charged under the act have expressed regret at not having the power to impose penalties which they thought the offences justified.
We have the most recent illustration which indicated that the case prepared by the combines investigation branch was so thorough that the firms engaged in the control of roofing material in Canada pleaded guilty. They not only pleaded guilty but admitted that they had operated a combine for purposes of profit for a period of over 20 years. Yet the maximum penalty the judge could impose on each company was a fine of $10,000, which means that they were fined the sum of $500 a year during the time they had been operating this combine. Surely the principle of the act is such that those who go into a combination for the purpose of setting prices and making greater profits for themselves should be dealt with in a severe way, especially when they maintain that they believe in free enterprise competition and by their actions give the lie to their statements.
Certainly, Mr. Chairman, the time has come for the revision of the penalties under the act so as to make it clear to the companies which take action under a combine which is detrimental to public welfare and harmful
Supply-Justice
to the consumers' pocketbooks that we will enable our courts, on finding those people guilty, to impose a penalty which will really hit them where it hurts those profiteers most, namely in their pocketbooks. I would also recommend that a crime against society is one which should, perhaps in the circumstances, entail a jail sentence as well. Can the minister tell us whether any consideration has been given to this phase of the matter?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the act as it appears in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, as amended by chapter 51 of the statutes of 1953-54, contains no ceiling on the fine that may be imposed, so the suggestion made by the hon. member has been in force for some three or four years. The case to which my hon. friend refers, which I believe was determined the day before yesterday or very recently, in any event, by a plea of guilty, happened to be a case in which the offence arose under the provisions of previous legislation when there was a maximum fine. It takes some time to bring these matters through the stages of investigation to prosecution and this is why, in that particular case, there was a maximum fine. But in cases arising since the amendments there is no maximum; the fine is in the discretion of the court.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is it not possible under the act as it now stands to impose jail sentences on the officials of the company?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. The courts may punish any failure to comply with an order under this section by a fine in the discretion of the court or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.


Harold Edward Winch: That is if an order of the court that they shall not continue in their operations is not complied with. Is that not the point? Could it also apply to the actual offence itself?


Edmund Davie Fulton: To the actual offence itself.


Harold Edward Winch: Why the dickens do the judges not use it?


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: I should like to touch on a problem which is quite significant in my constituency. I bring it to the minister's attention because I am certain it relates to this section of the act. As the minister knows, the propane gas industry, or the bottled gas industry, has made great gains in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta because of the presence of the butane gas. As it progressed we found that many of the people in isolated rural communities and farmers were using bottled gas to a very large extent.

Supply-Justice
I believe at that time there were three companies engaged in the production and sale of bottled gas. Now we find there has been a merger of those companies, with the result that the price of propane gas has increased by 25 per cent in Saskatchewan. I think it is significant that there has not been a corresponding increase in the price of that gas in Alberta, which certainly indicates that there is a provincial monopoly exerting itself on the trade.
This is imposing a particular hardship on anyone who, as the minister knows, has gone to the great expense of installing natural gas or purchased or leased a large 500 or 1,000-gallon tank or has installed a home-cooking unit. Can the minister give me any information on what hope the consumers of this product may have of getting some redress which would put them on a basis comparable with that of the other provinces?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the branch [DOT]takes cognizance of all information which it receives as a result of its own initiative, or which is directed to it as a result of knowledge coming to the attention of individuals or organizations, and it institutes the appropriate inquiry.
The hon. member will be aware that it is not the policy to state in any case whether or not an investigation is under way until such time as the matter has reached some finality. I would therefore suggest to him, if he has any particular information on this matter in his hands, that it would be appreciated and helpful if he would send it to me or to the director of investigation and research.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I think the Combines Investigation Act is of interest to anyone who is concerned with the idea of the relationship on the one side of pure monopoly and on the other side of pure competition. I have noticed in the last number of years, welling up from the business community through such forms of communication as the Financial Post and bank presidents' statements, a feeling against the way in which the Combines Investigation Act works.
In recent weeks I have been digging into this further because I have had a specific interest and hoped that the combines investigation branch might do something in one specific case. I discovered in the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science for February, 1956 and February, 1957, a number of articles dealing with this particular act and the way it works. I discovered there is quite a keen questioning of the act and how it should be handled.
Arising out of that I wanted to see whether the minister had any opinions or any ideas,

as someone new on the job, on the words expressed by Mr. George Wilson. This is taken from the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science of February, 1957. Mr. Wilson wrote:
In recent years certain business interests, lawyers, and professional economists have been insisting that the combines commission be required to demonstrate more than an "undue lessening of competition" to obtain a conviction under the Combines Investigation Act. What is being suggested is that the commission prove that the economic consequences of the anti-competitive business practices complained of are less desirable from the public point of view than they would have been in the absence of such restrictive activities.
In other words, the business community and some professional economists are asking that the combines investigation commissioners be required to go further in the proceedings arising from their investigations and prove undue harm to the public interest, which they do not have to do at the present time. I am wondering whether the minister is concerned with that particular point and whether, in taking over as the new head of the ministry of justice, he has any ideas about it.
In the second place I should like to ask him about the initiation of inquiries. I gather that in recent years the provision for the initiation of an inquiry by six people supplying information or making a petition has practically lapsed, and that in actual fact it is the director of the branch who launches most of the investigations. That being the case, I think it would be useful to have a fuller explanation of just how much information is required. Is it just a matter of suspicion? Is the division keeping a general surveillance at the present time on many of our major industries? At what point does the director decide to go ahead in a specific case?
I should like to refer to a specific case in order to obtain an opinion with respect to whether it would come under the Combines Investigation Act. I have had a complaint from a small car dealer that he is at a disadvantage in selling cars compared with the larger dealers, those with a greater volume of sales, in that the acceptance corporations or finance companies that handle the dealings will give a kick-back to the large dealer because they know that during the year he is going to direct all the business he can their way. Consequently the small car dealer is at a disadvantage. At the same time, the small car dealer who brought this matter to my attention said that he would hesitate very much to make an open complaint because of the difficulties in which he might be involved both with respect to the car companies and the finance companies.

I would appreciate it very much if the minister would answer the questions I have asked him.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the first question asked by the hon. gentleman with regard to whether we are making a study of the combines legislation, I can tell him, as I think he would expect, that when we took over it was the task of every minister with respect to his particular department-and I certainly regarded it as my task -to have a look at all the areas for which the department is responsible, and one of the most important, of course, is the field of combines legislation. He mentioned the discussions which are current as to what he described, I think, as the conflict or possible conflict between the principle of unlimited competition on the one hand and the desire to prevent any combination or arrangement on the other.
The discussion has been opened up, I think it is correct to say, as a result of the fine papers case, in which the jurisprudence was pretty well settled by a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada that all that needs to be proved is the fact of a combination and that it has substantially lessened competition, and the courts do not require to inquire further than that as to the effects in terms of practical economics or particularly long-range economics on the public interest. The courts do not have to inquire into that once the two basic elements have been proven.
That does raise important considerations for all those in the field of business, and as a natural consequence they have expressed their concern and have made representations suggesting that the subject be reviewed. Therefore on both counts, first that it would be no less than my duty to inquire into the whole field on taking over, and second, as the result of representations that have been received, a study of the whole field of combines legislation is being made; but it is a general review, and I am not able to indicate at the present time what may be the results.
The hon. gentleman raised two other points which I perhaps should deal with now. As to the requirements that must be met before an investigation is commenced, the hon. member will find the statutory requirements set out in section 8 of the Combines Investigation Act, and it might be useful to put them on the record here. The section is in these words:
The director shall
(a)	on application made under section 7,
(b)	whenever he has reason to believe that section 32 or 34 of this act or section 411 or 412 of the Criminal Code has been, is being or is about to be violated, or,
Supply-Justice
(c)	whenever he is directed by the minister to inquire whether any of the sections mentioned in paragraph (b) has been, is being or is about to be violated,
cause an inquiry to be made into all such matters as he considers necessary to inquire into.
So you may have the three methods; any six persons making representations, the director moving of his own volition, or the director being directed by the minister. I think it is probably correct to say that in the considerable majority of cases the investigation is started by the director as the result of facts which are drawn to his attention not by six persons but by reports appearing in the press, reports from other departments of government and so on.
The third question asked by the hon. gentleman was whether a certain course of conduct said to be practised by car dealers constituted an offence or whether an inquiry would be warranted. I can only say in answer that if the conduct complained of did, prima facie, seem to establish that there is an offence under the combines legislation, it would be investigated by the director.
In that connection I can assure the hon. gentleman that the director is frequently in receipt of confidential communications. I do not think any dealer or any person need have any fear of the consequences if he wants to go to the director confidentially and lay information that is in his possession before the director. At least in the stage at which the initial inquiry is instituted that information will be kept perfectly confidential. If it is found that there is evidence of an offence it may be that we cannot move very far unless somebody is prepared to come forward and give evidence in a formal way, but the confidentiality is entirely preserved at least with respect to the preliminary inquiry by the director, to see whether there is in fact anything which would bring the complaint under the combines legislation.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Further to the second answer, is the director being encouraged? Is there likely to be any expansion in his bureau in order to maintain more of a general surveillance? If, as I understand, most of the investigations are initiated by him, what sort of staff has he behind him in order to maintain a general surveillance? After all, to rely on newspaper articles or letters is a sort of hit or miss system.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The director and his branch constantly amaze me by their efficiency.


Hazen Robert Argue: Recently acquired?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not a large branch, yet they are carrying on a comparatively large number of important and complicated investigations. At the present time there are

Supply-Justice
five vacancies in the junior and middle categories which have existed tor some years. I have the matter under consideration now as to whether we need to fill them immediately, and we are keeping watch on the situation for suitable candidates. There is that leeway there for further expansion of the activities of the branch should it become obvious that that is necessary.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have two more very minor questions. Is the gentleman who wrote this rather major article on the Combines Investigation Act, Mr. L. A. Skeogh, a member of the government department at this time?


Edmund Davie Fulton: He is on the staff of the branch, but at the present time he is on one year's leave of absence without pay as a visiting professor at Queen's University.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The second question is this. Can the minister give us any more information on how progress is coming along in the investigation into pulpwood prices in the province of Quebec?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Final hearings before the restrictive trade practices commission have been concluded. The next step is for the commission to make its report. I am not able to say when the report will be received, but the hearings are concluded.


Mr. Hahn:: I should like to ask the minister a question respecting a case now before the commission. I refer to the united fishermen and allied workers union. Can he give us a report as to what progress has been made, and if and when a report is expected from that hearing?


Mr. Fulion:: The taking of evidence has in part been concluded, and the director is now reviewing such evidence and awaiting some further evidence in order to reach a conclusion as to whether to submit a statement of evidence to the commission.


Mr. Barnett:: I have a question on the same subject as that which v/as raised by the hon. member for New Westminster. The minister will recall that earlier' this session-as a matter of fact, it was on October 21 as reported at page 181 of Hansard-I asked him a question in this connection which reads as follows:
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, and my question is this. In view of the minister's statement on Friday last that he has no authority under the Combines Investigation Act to direct the discontinuance of the investigation into the affairs of the united fishermen and allied workers union, will he introduce amendments to clarify the intent of the act in order to ensure that trade unions in the future will not be subject to this sort of investigation?

On that occasion the minister replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, combines legislation generally is presently under consideration in my department and X can assure the hon. member that we will give very full consideration to the point of view he has just put forward.
My question to the minister is whether he can give us any information as to the result of the consideration he has given to this matter since October 21 last. Can he inform the house that in point of fact amendments will be introduced which will prevent investigations of this sort from being introduced into the field of trade union activities?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not possible to give a final answer to that question at the present time. Section 4 of the Combines Investigation Act is quite clear. It reads as follows:
4. Nothing in this act shall be construed to apply to combinations of workmen or employees for their own reasonable protection as such workmen or employees.
This is, of course, one of the questions which will have to be considered by the director as he assesses the evidence. He has not completed that work yet. I therefore can only say that I shall be glad to consider, on the conclusion of the case, whether the legislation has been shown to be deficient in the protection which it was intended to afford such unions in any substantive or procedural respect, or whether any of the provisions have been misapplied.


Mr. Cameron:: Just now the minister told us that he has been reviewing the whole field of operations of the combines investigation branch. I wonder whether he has also reviewed some of the earlier investigations following which no action was taken. I have in mind the investigation some few years ago of the milling industry. If my memory serves me correctly, although the McGregor report revealed the existence of a combination in restraint of trade, a combination setting prices across the country, no action was taken by the former administration. I was wondering whether the minister is considering a review of that situation and possibly a new investigation in order to see whether the conditions complained of in the report are still extant.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Current situations are constantly under review. I do not think it would be useful to order an investigation to be made into a situation which arose and was reported upon five, six or more years ago. It is the current situation and the current detriment with which we are concerned. In this field, as in others, there is a constant surveillance of the situation.


Mr. Castleden:: I should like to refer back to the minister's statement with regard to

the case of the roofing combine. From the minister's reply I gather that in this case the penalty which was imposed by the judges after the companies were found guilty was limited because the offence with which they were charged was laid while there were limitations on the amount of the penalty. I presume, then, that the penalty was imposed because they were guilty of an offence at the time; that is prior to the amendment of the act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: How then could they be penalized for carrying on a combine after the limitations were removed as to the fines the judge could impose upon them? In this case I believe there were eleven companies.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: The penalty was $10,000 per company. I should like to know whether or not that is the case; that is, whether the fine of $10,000 each was because of the limitation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am informed that the period covered by the investigation and upon the basis of which the charges were laid was prior to the amendment of the act, the period within which the penalties were confined to a maximum of $10,000. If I am correct in my understanding, the investigation and the charges did not relate to a period after the amendment when the ceiling on fines was removed.


George Hugh Castleden: Would it be possible, by laying another charge, to have them penalized for carrying on a combine for a period since the limitation, if they were doing so?


James Ross Fulton: If in fact any evidence were available which disclosed that they continued to carry on their combine it is possible that the suggestion made by the hon. member would have validity. I would have to review the evidence in order to see whether that is the case, but I think it is correct to say that when an investigation has proceeded to the point where it is fairly clear that legal proceedings are to be had, in most of these cases but not by any means in all of them the activities complained of are suspended. I will have to see whether that was the case here. However, I can assure the hon. gentleman that if there is evidence of a continuation of the offence or of the actions which formed the basis of the charge, the director will take appropriate action.


George Hugh Castleden: That deals with any case as from now on.


James Ross Fulton: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: I am referring to the fact that this combine operated for a period of
Supply-Justice
some 20 years, according to the evidence. A portion of the time was after the amendment to the act which removed the limit on the penalty. It seems to me that this combine is getting off very easily. I think it could be proved that if these ten companies, which have operated across the whole of Canada, had operated a roofing combine in this country for that length of time, the profits they made because of the combine would amount to many millions of dollars, and that the penalty of $10,000 a company is mere peanuts and is not, as a matter of fact, justice.
Surely the purpose of this act is to prevent and discourage combines and their operation. It seems to me that in this case the purpose is not being fulfilled if these companies can make profits of this kind and get such a very small penalty because of the limitations in the act when the complaint was made.


James Ross Fulton: I am informed that it was the opinion of crown counsel that the charges he could prove and which he felt would result in a conviction related to the period before the act was amended. That was the opinion of counsel and that opinion, of course, we had to accept. I am also informed that the prosecution commenced about a year ago.


Douglas Mason Fisher: If one makes a distinction between combinations on the one side and monopolies or mergers on the other, has there been any record in the past of orders by the courts to dissolve monopolies or mergers, or have all the results of these investigations been on the combines side?


James Ross Fulton: I am informed that the amendment empowering the courts to make such orders only came into effect in 1952, and that there have been no merger or monopoly cases finalized since that amendment in which the circumstances would be such that an order of that nature would be applicable.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I appreciated the minister's previous answer about the initiation of complaints, but if one makes the distinction between a combine and a monopoly or a merger, I was just wondering if the minister could express any opinion as to how much of the research and investigation of the department is going toward the monopolies and mergers side where you are much less likely to get complaints than you are on the combines side.


James Ross Fulton: It varies from year to year, and I think one can only say that we take them as they come when the evidence arises or when it is brought to our attention. It would not be possible to give a percentage; for instance, that 40 per cent of the attention is directed to looking out for mergers and 60

Supply-Justice
per cent to looking out for combines. It depends entirely upon when evidence of offences becomes available.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to ask the
minister whether or not among the 30 cases now before this branch of his department there are included charges against some large chain store grocery outlets or against brewery and distillery amalgamations?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I understand the question of the hon. gentleman it is as to whether any of the cases recently before us included charges against chain stores?


George Hugh Castleden: Grocery chain store outlets.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


George Hugh Castleden: Among the 30 cases you mentioned in which there were complaints now before the commission-I am asking whether these included complaints against chain store outlets in the form of combines?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are 21 cases before the commission as of today.


George Hugh Castleden: Oh, 21? Do they include any against grocery chain store outlets?


Edmund Davie Fulton: These embrace only the combine and merger cases and would not include investigations as to whether there is, for instance, what is generally described as the loss-leader practice. That is not included in this figure of 21.


George Hugh Castleden: It was not the loss-leader point that I was particularly dealing with. I was asking the minister whether among the 21 cases now before the commission there were included charges of monopoly practices by large chain store grocery outlets.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answer is no.


Frederick George Hahn: Are there any investigations
being carried on at this time with respect to mergers of newspapers or other publications?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am again in the position where, if I gave an answer to the hon. gentleman's question, I think I would be in breach of the principle that until any inquiry has reached a certain stage we do not give information, so I would prefer not to answer that question.


Harold Edward Winch: Perhaps in a similar vein-I am not going to deal with loss-leader practices, and I may not be able to ask a direct question because the minister might not feel he could answer me, but I would make this suggestion to the hon. gentleman. If they are not doing it now, his department should make a very exhaustive examination of the full operations of the Taylor interests and the Weston interests.

I say this because at least in my interpretation of the act it constitutes a combine or a restraint of trade where you have a firm in the retailing business, supplied by a wholesaling business, supplied by a production business, all of which are owned by the same interest.
When you have a situation which is developing through the medium of controlled companies and subsidiaries, such as I am convinced there is in Canada today in these two cases, I think it is high time that a most exhaustive analysis be made by this department of all the ramifications and the controlled interests of those two individuals.
I must admit it is only my own impression, but I have made some studies and I can assure the minister that it is a terrific job to try to follow through all the ramifications of these companies controlled by these two individuals. I am convinced in my own mind that the Minister of Justice would be doing a great service to the consumers of Canada if these two individuals were completely examined in respect of all the ramifications of their financial and their corporate control.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, any activities of whatever individual or of whatever corporation which may be carried on and which come within the scope of the combines legislation will be investigated by the director as soon as evidence suggesting that there is an infraction of the combines act is brought to his attention. However, they have to be brought within the scope of that legislation. If my hon. friend or anybody else has any evidence that would be helpful in this regard, then I suggest he could make it available to the director.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could the minister express an opinion on a point that has been brought up? Where you get, for instance, a huge corporation such as A. V. Roe or some other organization which straddles a number of interests, is there anything in the Combines Investigation Act that would allow investigation of this type of merger and the extension of these corporations into so many fields? I can think immediately of A. V. Roe or Algoma Steel.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The offences covered by the act are defined in the definitions section, section 2 of the act, subsection (e) which defines a merger, trust or monopoly, and it also outlines the restrictions as to the types of businesses to which the definition is confined.
Therefore I come back to the answer I gave previously that if any corporation, however large or small, in its activities comes within the terms of the definition and can be established to have committed an offence, then it will be proceeded against, or it will at least be investigated. That being the general

situation then, as I say, we have to have evidence in a particular case, and I would not be able to give an opinion in answer to the general form of the question which I have just been asked.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the minister has had any formal complaint from retail jewellery outlets in Canada protesting the development which they believe constitutes a violation of the fair trade practices act. Apparently one or two discount houses are circulating catalogues to insurance dealers, filling station operators and others offering merchandise generally found in a jewellery store. They feel that this is a violation of the fair trade practices act. Also they believe that the prices quoted and the quality of the goods advertised are not as they should be.
The magazine which is the official organ of the jewellery stores suggested in a recent article that the people concerned should liquidate their business before it is too late, because they feel they are going to be the victims of these discount houses. I wonder whether the minister has any comment to make, and whether he thinks this constitutes a breach of the fair trade practices act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have received a number of informal representations on this subject, and we are considering at the moment whether they raise any cause for inquiry.


Donald Cameron: I wonder if the minister could tell us whether it would be considered prima facie evidence of a combine in restraint of trade and an offence against the act if there appeared in the papers an announcement of a merger involving all the cement companies in Canada, and whether the department would take action if such a notice was brought to its attention.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be drawn into expressing positive opinions on hypothetical questions. Such an extraordinary announcement in the papers would, I am sure, arouse more than passing interest on the part of the director.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, there is one group of privately owned corporations in Canada which has probably the greatest amount of interlocking associations in its activities, as far as relations with the general public are concerned. I wonder whether any request has been received for an investigation into the private chartered banks to determine whether they constitute combines in restraint of trade. I am sure everyone will agree that one bank is just the same as the next when it comes to interest rates and taking your money from you.
Supply-Justice


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the answer to that question is that the business of banking does not fall within the terms of the legislation concerned here, which relates primarily to commodities.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Can I assume, then, that private finance corporations which are not banks, small loan companies such as Household Finance and similar concerns, come into the same category?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I believe that generally speaking it would be correct to say that they are dealt with by other legislation and that they do not fall within the category intended to be dealt with under this legislation.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I understand
there are two ways in which the government can punish firms which appear to be breaking the law in this particular regard by action outside the Criminal Code; that is, by the removal of customs duties, and the revoking of patents or that sort of thing. Has anything of that kind ever been done in the past to bring groups into line?


Edmund Davie Fulton: One or two instances have
occurred in the past, and one case is under consideration at the present time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In which category?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Customs tariff protection.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I ask the minister if he could tell us the present status of the report concerning the sugar industry in western Canada and the proposed merger of certain sugar companies? I realize that there has been some corporate change since the report was prepared, but I should like to ask the general question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The report and the findings
of the commission are still before us in the department for consideration as to what action we should take, and while the situation is as I have described it, it is difficult to go much further than that statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I ask the minister whether any study has been made of the sugar industry in Canada as a whole?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I must make a general reply here and say that specific answers to inquiries such as that are not usually given.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That reply gives one the hope that this matter is being studied. May I ask also what is the present status of any inquiry or action with regard to the alleged combine in the manufacture and sale of beer in Canada?

Supply-Justice


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I have answered that
question already. That has been referred to counsel with instructions for prosecution.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I have one
question with regard to the details on page 260, in relation to the fees and expenses of legal counsel, etc. I see this figure has been reduced by $10,000. The reduction lies, I imagine, in the field of services and might involve a serious curtailment of activity. If the branch is increasing its work I wonder why this reduction was made.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the hon. gentleman
means page 250, does he not?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, page 250.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, the item we are considering comes under item 179, the details of which appear at the top of page 250. If the hon. gentleman is looking at the bottom of page 250, that would come under item 180.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I apologize.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If it is agreed that we should
carry item 179 and come to item 180, I am prepared to deal with that question.


Mr. Blackmore:: May I ask the minister
whether or not the use of the word "merger" was justified as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre used it in respect to sugar companies?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is one of the points before us in the department for consideration at the present time, and one which must be decided before we can determine our course of action.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister if, for the information of those who read Hansard, and for my information, too, he will tell us what companies are proposing to merge?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I believe the names of the companies are the British Columbia Sugar Refining Company Limited and the Manitoba Sugar Company Limited. I am not sure that those are the exact names, but I think most of those who are interested will be able to identify the companies which have already been named in the report.


Frank Claus Christian: I should like to ask the minister if the expression "trade practices" covers the restriction of news.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am advised that those words do not appear in the legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
ISO. Office of investigation and research, $455,375.
Edmund Davie Fulton: On this item I have a motion which I would ask one of my colleagues to move. It is:
That vote 180 be reduced from $140,000 to $120,000.

My colleague the Minister of Fisheries has agreed to move it.


Mr. MacLean:: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister explain why this figure is different from the figure in the book? The amount set out in the book is $455,375 rather than $140,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I have to admit that there is a small error in the drafting of the motion which I, as Minister of Justice, find somewhat embarrassing. It should be that the vote be reduced by $20,000; I think that would probably be ample. It should be reduced from $455,375 to $435,375. I will have the motion written out again, but in the meantime I can explain that the $20,000 reduction will be found in detail under fees and expenses of legal counsel, accountants, special assistants, reporters and witnesses. It has been found that we will not require all that money this year.
As I said yesterday, it does not represent a reduction in the activities of the department. In estimating we have to make provision, for instance, for the payment of fees to counsel as cases are launched in court, and we have not that number of cases before the courts which will make it necessary to spend this amount of money this year. Whenever we get them before the courts we can provide the money in next year's estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This would not be a case of lawyers working for less money?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Lawyers' fees are always
reasonable and do not require justification.


George Hugh Castleden: I presume the amount of $140,000 was a decision of the previous minister of justice, since these items take in 1957?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. These were initially prepared in August of 1956, I believe, and tabled early in 1957. It is a feature of estimating that when you are estimating 18 months in advance of the end of the fiscal year in which the money will be spent you frequently approach the end of the fiscal year and find there are reductions that can be made.


George Hugh Castleden: It was an estimate of the previous minister?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, before the item carries I should like to congratulate the minister on finding a place where we can save some money, but may I just request that when he finds it necessary to make any

amendment he provide us with a sufficient number of copies of the amendment so that I may have one for this group?


Stanley Howard Knowles: None of us has a correct copy.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, if hon. members would be kind enough to permit me to do so, and with the concurrence of my colleague the Minister of Fisheries, I would move:
That item No. 180, "Combines Investigation Act- office of investigation and research" be reduced from $455,375 to $435,375.
The item itself is found on page 35 of the estimates, and the original wording of the motion is based on the fact that the detail within which the reduction takes place provided for $140,000.


The Chairman:: Shall the amendment
carry?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can't this one carry?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I have only one question to ask, and it is not a matter of detail, either; it is a matter of a principle, I suppose you would call it. Would the minister say if that $20,000 which is no longer required is evidence of waste and extravagance in the estimate as it now stands?


Henri Courtemanche: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Henri Courtemanche: Order. When the committee rose at one o'clock we were considering item 180 of the estimates of the Department of Justice, and the minister moved the following amendment:
That item No. 180, "Combines Investigation Act- office of investigation and research" be reduced from $455,375 to $435,375.
Shall the amendment carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the amendment carries may I ask the minister whether he has figures as to how much was spent under this subitem in the fiscal year 1956-57? Perhaps he can tell us how much he thinks will be required under this same subitem in 1957-58?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, that information will be looked up and I will reply to the hon. gentleman in a moment. But before I do so I should like to refer to a statement in
Supply-Justice
answer to a question by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary, in case I should have misled the hon. gentleman or the committee. I believe the question was asked as follows:
I should like to ask the minister if the expression "trade practices" covers the restriction of news?
I replied:
I am advised that those words do not appear in the legislation.
I think the correct answer would have been that the words "trade practices" appear only in the title of the restrictive trade practices commission; and since the commission is set up and referred to in the statute, then obviously the words "trade practices" do appear in the statute. As I understood the intent of the hon. gentleman's question, however, it was to ask whether the offences covered in the act are covered with reference to trade practices in the sense of unfair trade practices, undesirable trades practices, and so on. The offences as defined in the act and as covered in the ambit of the legislation do not have reference to trade practices as such, and it was in that sense I intended my answer to be taken.
To answer the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, a hasty calculation indicates that something of the order of $100,000 was spent in the year 1956-57, and we anticipate that we shall be spending close to $120,000 this year. For that reason I moved to reduce the amount to $120,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can't we have fun with figures? The minister is now indicating that in this fiscal year the government will actually be spending $20,000 more than was spent in the previous fiscal year; yet, because of the way the previous government overestimated, he is able to come before the committee and ask for a reduction in the estimate. As I say, it is very interesting the fun one can have with figures. If an error was made here it was an error of overestimating, not an error in terms of waste and extravagance.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item agreed to.
Mr. Richardson:: Before you come to the next item, Mr. Chairman, I should like your opinion or that of the Minister of Justice as to the propriety of my raising a question at this point or at some other point. Before I ask the minister a question I should like, if I may, to confirm in the house the personal congratulations I have already given to him upon attaining the very high and distinguished office of Minister of Justice. Those of us who belong to the legal profession, as I do, know that he will bring to that post, as

Supply-Justice
a good many of his predecessors have done, a good mind, experience and a desire to serve the country in the very illustrious portfolio of Minister of Justice.
The question I would like to put

and I have been searching for an item in the estimates of the Department of Justice-relates to the phrase "not a judicial body but a semijudicial body". I cannot find that any estimate has been set up for a semijudicial body. I did understand-perhaps it was not said by the present government-that at least a suggestion was made in recent months, and some weeks prior to June 10, that a semijudicial body would be set up for the determination of problems between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and private radio stations. Are we to assume, Mr. Chairman, that because there does not seem to be anything in the estimates this pledge or this suggestion is not to be implemented, at least at this time?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. gentleman should draw any conclusion, restricted as to time or otherwise, such as he has suggested, on the basis of those estimates.
I would like to say at once I appreciate very much his kindly reference to myself. If he will recall for a moment he will appreciate that the estimates we are now dealing with, as was made clear by the Minister of Finance, are the estimates which were prepared by our predecessors, and he will realize that no item such as he is interested in appears in the book now before us. In any event, the subject matter which he has in mind would, I assume, be covered by an item in the estimates of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or under the Department of National Revenue through which the C.B.C. reports and, as I understand it, would not be likely to appear in the estimates of the Department of Justice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does not the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation- just to have the matter clear-report to the Minister of National Revenue rather than to the department?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member is quite right; it reports to the minister. I will check it here. I think it has its own separate estimate; therefore I assume the item which covers the subject matter referred to would appear in the C.B.C. estimates.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: The minister has dealt with my question, which is semijudicial. He has at least given me half the answer.
181. Bankruptcy Act administration, $48,985.


Frederick George Hahn: Can the minister inform the committee how many bankruptcy cases were heard during the year? While he is looking up the information perhaps he can compare the number with the previous year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I regret that I am unable to give the hon. gentleman the information he has asked for. I will get it for him. If he would prefer to have this item stand that will be satisfactory, or perhaps we could carry the item subject to my getting the information.


Frederick George Hahn: I may have some questions on it. I would just as soon the item did not carry.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then this item stands.


Frank Claus Christian: The minister may not have the information readily available, but I should like to know whether he has any statistical information showing the number of bankruptcies this year compared with one year ago.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I find I have the information as to the number of bankruptcies up to the end of 1955 in the figures which were prepared for the estimates, but I realize that may not be very satisfactory and would therefore be prepared to get up to date information and bring in an answer later. Perhaps, therefore, this item should stand.
Item stands.
Penitentiaries-
182. Administration of the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries, including $60,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by the treasury board, $482,446.


Mr. Stick:: May I preface my remarks under this heading by saying that when gentlemen of the legal profession start throwing bouquets at one another I think it is time for us poor laymen to beware. I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. The nearest federal penitentiary to Newfoundland is at Dorchester in the maritimes. Has there been any request with regard to the building of a federal penitentiary in the province of Newfoundland?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman has asked me a question, as I understood it, with regard to plans for building a federal penitentiary in Newfoundland.


Leonard T. Stick: Have any representations been made?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The officials are just arriving, and I will be able to answer that question in one moment. I am informed that no representations have been received to that effect. We have an arrangement with the government of Newfoundland whereby we pay them stated per capita rates for the

prisoners they accommodate who would otherwise have to be accommodated in federal penitentiaries.


Mr. Olson:: I understand the department has studied or is studying the redistribution of prisoners among provincial jails and federal penitentiaries in western Canada. I also understand the federal government feels it should assume some additional responsibility in this regard. Does the Department of Justice feel that it needs some additional accommodation for federal prisoners in western Canada? If so, will a committee be set up to look into the selection of a site or sites?
My information is that some 40 or 50 invitations have been forwarded from different areas in western Canada for the establishment of such an institution. In view of the large number of communities asking to have it located in their areas, will the minister say whether or not there will be an opportunity for representations to be made to the committee when they are determining where the site will be?


James Ross Fulton: The hon. gentleman is correct when he states we have had somewhere around 40 to 50 representations or requests from communities in western Canada for the choice of their area as the site of a new federal penitentiary. The situation remains as I have outlined it previously and, indeed, as I did yesterday on the administration item of the Department of Justice; namely, that until we have had an opportunity to discuss with the provinces the implications of the Fauteux committee's report we will not be able to make an intelligent decision as to where a new federal penitentiary should be located, and as to the size and type of building that should be constructed. Therefore, as I have advised all those who have renewed their representations recently, it is necessary to leave a decision on that matter for the time being.
The hon. gentleman asks whether, after a decision is made, there will be an opportunity for interested communities to renew their representations to a committee which will be considering the matter. I think the best answer I could give is to say that this and related questions will be considered at the proposed meeting with the attorneys general of the provinces. At that time I expect there will be competing claims, no doubt supported by the attorneys general, but I am quite sure that at those meetings we will be able to discuss the problem and arrive at the most satisfactory solution from the point of view of the country as a whole.
Supply-Justice


Frederick George Hahn: Speaking to the question raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, I know the Minister of Justice is fully aware of the needs of the province of British Columbia; and in view of the fact that the British Columbia penitentiary is located in the city of New Westminster itself I believe the minister will recognize that there is great need for another penitentiary in western Canada.
I have one or two specific requests to make with regard to any new institution that may be built. First and foremost, when the matter of building a new penitentiary is being considered I would request that one of the requirements that should be taken into account is sufficient agricultural land surrounding the penitentiary so the land surrounding the present British Columbia penitentiary may be made available to the city of New Westminster. I request that any new penitentiary that is built be equipped to look after the agricultural activities of the inmates of the British Columbia penitentiary.
I fully realize, as I am sure the minister does, that New Westminster has reached a point where there is not a single lot available within the city limits. When the citizens look at 70 acres of the finest land in the whole area being devoted to raising agricultural produce for the penitentiary, which is practically in the centre of the city, one can understand that there is a certain feeling of animosity among the citizens that this condition should be allowed to continue as it has during past years and possibly will in the future unless new plans are evolved. I do not suggest that the penitentiary itself necessarily need be moved, as the spending of $10 million to build an additional penitentiary to house the 650 inmates in the present institution might not be warranted at this time.
We are not asking that the British Columbia penitentiary itself be moved. We just want the land surrounding the penitentiary to be made available to the city. That is the prime consideration that I think should be kept in mind when any decision is made respecting where a new penitentiary is to be located in the western part of Canada.


Charles Edward Johnston: While this
question is being discussed I should like to draw the minister's attention to the question of a federal penitentiary in Alberta, particularly in the Drumheller area. I have taken up this matter with the minister during this session, and he indicated to me that an investigation was going on in the province of Alberta to ascertain whether or not the

Supply-Justice
federal government would be wise to go ahead with the construction of a penitentiary there until such time as it had consulted with the provincial authorities to see if there was a necessity. Once that decision had been reached, then the federal government would take some further active steps to see that something was done about it.
Of course, when I was taking this matter up with the minister I pointed out the advantages that the Drumheller area had for the location of such an institution. I pointed out that it had exceptionally good agricultural country surrounding it, that it had all the coal, natural gas and oil that could ever be expected to be used for heating purposes or for any other purposes for which they might be required in the construction and operation of a penitentiary.
As the minister knows, for some time now the provincial government of Alberta has been giving consideration to the construction of a provincial jail, but the federal government's indecision has prevented the provincial government from going ahead with this project. They already have the property bought and are awaiting, as I am informed, the decision of the federal government before they can go ahead. It is obvious that it would not be necessary to have two large institutions of that kind in the province in addition to what is there already.
It does seem to me that since the federal government have now been investigating this matter for some time, they have no doubt come to a conclusion. If the minister could advise us as to the progress of their investigation and what their decision is in this regard, I am sure the people of Alberta would appreciate it. When the minister is making his decision I hope he will give first consideration to the Drumheller area which I indicated to him previously for the location of this building. It has tremendous advantages that I do not think are possessed by any other site in the province of Alberta.
It is an urgent matter for either the provincial government or the federal government to go ahead immediately with the construction of such an institution. However, it seems that the federal government's decision now is holding up the whole thing. Certainly the province cannot go ahead until the federal government has made its decision. It seems to me that the federal government is now in a position where such an institution is required under federal jurisdiction, and that we should go ahead now and build that institution in Alberta, preferably, of course, at Drumheller.


Donald Cameron: In listening to the debate just now, it occurred to me that the old

adage that crime does not pay apparently will have to be discarded, because apparently it does pay if there are enough people inside penitentiaries. I should like to call another matter to the minister's attention. It has to do with extension of penitentiary service. I wish to ask him if he or his officials are giving any consideration to the establishment of a penitentiary for the accommodation of women prisoners in western Canada.
Just before I came down here I had occasion to visit the penitentiary in Westminster,, and I had a long talk with the warden there. He expressed the view that one of the most important facts in the rehabilitation of prisoners was whether or not they had been in receipt of regular visits and communications from their families and friends while in prison. For women prisoners from British Columbia brought down to Kingston there is not the slightest chance of their ever receiving a visit from any of their relatives or friends during the time of their imprisonment.
I think this is a serious lack in our penitentiary system. To me it is a rather brutal and cruel feature, that these women are brought half way across the continent knowing perfectly well that they are not going to see any friends or relatives during all the time they are serving their sentences. I wonder whether the minister can tell us whether he has been giving some consideration to the problem.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I could deal with the remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Bow River somewhat at the same time. It is a matter of fact that there is need for an additional penitentiary in western Canada. The overcrowding at the present time is most noticeable at the penitentiary at New Westminster where, during the year 1957, there had to be two transfers of prisoners to other penitentiaries, one in Saskatchewan and one in Manitoba. Hence the point made by the hon. member is one that is well before us.
I can say that we will bear in mind his representation that even though the penitentiary might not be transferred from New Westminster, nevertheless the agricultural lands, as I understand it, should be made available and agricultural lands elsewhere acquired. He will appreciate the fact that that would create a considerable problem because of the desirability of having your agricultural lands, which are worked to a great extent by the penitentiary inmates, as close as possible to the penitentiary itself. However, his urgings will be borne in mind.
On the same subject and in reply to the hon. member for Bow River may I say that

I am aware that the province of Alberta has a desire to proceed with the construction of ceriain additional prison accommodation of its own. I have discussed the matter with the deputy attorney general, and I regret that we have not been able to present to him any precise plan which would enable an immediate decision to be made. However, I believe I can properly say that he in his turn is in agreement that it would be sounder to wait until we have an over-all solution to this problem before proceeding separately with the construction of additional facilities in that province. This is one of the many reasons why we are fully aware that we must get on with the job as fast as we can, and why we have assigned one officer exclusively, full time, in the department to work out more precisely the implementation of the Fauteux committee report.
With regard to the observations of the hon. member for Nanaimo may I say this. As he will recall, the Fauteux committee devoted some attention to this question of an institution for women prisoners, and they urged that consideration should be given to the problem of whether there should be decentralization of women's penal institutions or whether they should continue, as they are at the present time, to be accommodated at one central penitentiary. That is also one of the problems which is actively under consideration in connection with these recommendations.


William James Henderson: On the subject of a
women's penitentiary, to which the hon. member for Nanaimo has just been referring, I think we as Canadians should feel rather gratified that of between 8 million to 9 million members of the female sex in Canada, we have an average of only about 82 to 85 women in our federal penitentiary.
On the subject of the women's penitentiary at Kingston, and having regard to the fact that I believe that penitentiary has a very high security rating, it could be used as a reception depot for prisoners becoming inmates of the federal penitentiary at Kingston. I was just wondering whether the minister would give us some idea whether or not the federal women's penitentiary will be built on the site that was formerly sold for the Collins Bay penitentiary, or would his answer of the Fauteux report apply to that matter?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We still have the site available if a decision should be made to build a separate women's penitentiary at Collins Bay. I do not like having to keep on saying that these details must await determination until we have arrived at an over-all program with regard to the Fauteux report but I am afraid
Supply-Justice
I am compelled once again to resort to that answer. However, I can tell the hon. gentleman this. He will be interested to learn that instead of the present number of inmates of the women's penitentiary being as high as he said, it is at the present time only 74 out of 8 million to 9 million women in Canada.


William James Henderson: On another point in connection with penitentiaries in the Kingston area, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the minister and his departmental officials on the progress that is being made in the construction of the Joyceville penitentiary. There are two points about which I should like to ask the minister. One is this. I should like to see the minister's department work, as they have in the past, in co-operation with the township of Pittsburgh for a combined water system to service both this penitentiary area and the village of Joyceville, having in mind that in the development of the village of Joyceville they could develop guards' residences on an individual basis, as they have residences available both at Collins Bay and at Kingston penitentiary close by.
I realize that the Department of Justice at the present time has entered into a temporary arrangement for a private water system, but I wonder if in the future they would bear in mind in their plans that they might be able to co-operate in some way with the township of Pittsburgh in order that water could be taken up to the village of Joyceville close by the penitentiary. The officers could then live within the limit of five miles while working at the penitentiary, and it would be very advantageous not only to the penitentiary branch but to the home life of guards, and would also tend to put the development in that area on a stable basis.
Another question I would like to ask the minister is with respect to the fact that the old penitentiary farm at Kingston penitentiary will eventually be disposed, of being replaced by both the Collins Bay farm and the Joyceville penitentiary farm. In view of the fact that the city of Kingston must plan future services for development in that area I wonder if the minister could give us some idea as to when that farm may be disposed of; that is to say the old Kingston penitentiary farm bordered by highway No. 33, Palace road and Johnston road?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am informed that present indications are that we will be needing that farm land for at least another two years. Therefore it seems premature at the moment to enter into specific negotiations for its disposal. Speaking from memory, we have

Supply-Justice
had I believe three indications from interested parties that they would like to be borne in mind when ultimate disposal is undertaken and they, together with all other representations received, will be carefully noted.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, I have not had the opportunity to go into the details of the Fauteux committee's report, and perhaps the subject matter which I am going to raise is contained therein. If it is I know the answer already, but in looking through the annual reports of the commissioner of penitentiaries for at least the past three or four years you find that the average educational level of inmates in our federal penitentiaries is probably grade V or grade VI. In the last report at which I am now looking, which is the one for the year ending March 31, 1956, over 60 per cent of the inmates in our penitentiaries across Canada had grade VIII or less of formal education.
Having visited two or three of the penitentiaries and discussed with the wardens and other officers and the inmates themselves the question of the vocational and education training given them, I am of the opinion that it is far less than it should be. I spent some time in the Collins Bay penitentiary-and for the benefit of those who are now looking at me it was just about two days-


An hon. Member:: Not two years?


Charles Benjamin Howard: No, it was not two years.


An hon. Member:: He must have got out.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Yes, I knew the warden. While I was there I was most interested to see the operation of the Collins Bay penitentiary, which is primarily a vocational training school for people who are transferred mostly from the Kingston federal penitentiary, who undergo some sort of vocational training in carpentery, bricklaying, sheet metal work and allied types of trades. I was told that last year, which I believe was the tenth anniversary of the operation of the Collins Bay educational program-


An hon. Member:: A Liberal realization.


Charles Benjamin Howard: A Liberal realization?


Douglas Mason Fisher: There is nothing liberal about a penitentiary.


Charles Benjamin Howard: It is a good job that the Liberals realize this necessity, though I am sure they did not have too much to do with this. In any event, I was told that of all the people who had-and I use the word in quotation marks-"graduated" from Collins Bay in this 10 year period, more than 65 per cent had not become recidivists, which

is a higher percentage than those released from penitentiaries other than Collins Bay.
I hope that, if this will depend on the Fauteux commission's report, a great advance will be made in the steps taken to provide educational training for inmates in penitentiaries, as well as to provide vocational training for them. I am not talking now in terms of the normal type of work which inmates of penitentiaries do such as making boots, sewing up mail bags and other such menial tasks which are classified in terms of vocational training. If these thoughts could be kept in mind, and if the minister wishes to make some comment on them, it would be most appreciated.
While I am on the subject I wonder if I could inquire whether the estimate that was referred to last night, No. 396 I believe it was, which applies to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, will be considered immediately following completion of the Department of Justice estimates?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, to answer the last question first, Mr. Chairman; that is the intention. As soon as we are through with penitentiaries, unless there are one or two supplementary items, that will be the procedure in general. As soon as we have completed these estimates we will go on to the R.C.M.P.
On the subject of education or training in the penitentiaries there are two main types involved which you might call academic training and vocational training. We have at each institution a number of professional teachers who are responsible for the carrying out of the academic education of the inmates. In addition there are at all the penitentiaries facilities for vocational training, although the main facilities are concentrated at Dorchester, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Collins Bay and at the federal training centre at St. Vincent de Paul.
The total expenditure for the fiscal year under review or materials involved in vocational training is $45,400. Those materials are broken down into $950 for training films, $4,210 for printing and stationery and $40,240 for materials. That does not take into account all the staff devoted to vocational training instruction or the administrative overhead in that connection. That is purely the expenditure on the materials purchased to be used this year in vocational training. It takes no account of the capital equipment in machine shops and so on, which were already on hand.
The types of training given, if the hon. gentleman would be interested, are broken down under automotive, barbering, brick masonry, cabinet making, upholstering, wood

finishing, carpentry, commercial, electrical, machine shop, painting, plastering, plumbing and steam fitting, rural repairs-which means repairs to machinery used on farms and in other rural occupations-sheet metal, elementary training and welding.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I understood the minister to say $45,400?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is right.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I have the right figure, then. I assume, from the listing of the types of vocational training given-barbering, rural maintenance and so on-that the minister is including under this item of vocational training the normal, day to day, so-called hard labour to which inmates are sentenced.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman. I am informed that this whole vocational program which I have been discussing is in addition to the ordinary day to day work required to be done by the inmates. This is a program of vocational training during which the men are assigned to benches under the supervision of an instructor-not just making things for the prison or the penitentiary; not just working on a farm driving a tractor. These are courses of instruction quite apart from the day to day work expected of some of the inmates.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The minister mentioned such training centres as those at Saskatchewan and St. Vincent de Paul, as having vocational training programs under federal jurisdiction. Are any of those on the same scale and nature as the one at Collins Bay, where there is a definite combined academic and vocational training course which is a full time occupation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am informed that they are all of the same nature, although they may not all be training the same number of men. They are all of the same nature, and with respect to the men undergoing training, the program at one place would be as extensive for an individual as if he had been at Collins Bay, with, the exception possibly of barbering and the commercial course. The figures I have show that of the penal institutions per se more is spent at Collins Bay than at any of the others. The heaviest expenditure of all is at the federal training centre. Then Collins Bay, $9,525

that is on the material used in the vocational training; Saskatchewan, $6,120; British Columbia, $5,625; and Dorchester, $3,775.


Charles Benjamin Howard: At Collins Bay, as I understand it, an inmate who spends two or three years there, or whatever period of time he has to serve, in some program of vocational training, gets a certificate of competence if
Supply-Justice
he passes the tests and performs his work well, and arrangements exist with the apprenticeship branch of the province of Ontario and, in some instances, with some of the unions in the building trades under which such persons can apply part of the time spent in training at Collins Bay toward the period of time which would be spent as an apprentice following a trade. Does a similar arrangement exist arising out of vocational training done in other penitentiaries, or is it confined to Collins Bay?


James Ross Fulton: I am advised that the arrangements in Ontario are more advanced than they are in other provinces. That would cover Collins Bay. It depends to some extent on the provisions of the provincial apprenticeship acts, as the hon. member will appreciate, and I am informed that attempts are being made to bring the same arrangements into effect to as full an extent in the other provinces as is presently the case in Ontario. But we have to admit we are more advanced in Ontario in this regard than elsewhere.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I think it is only fair to state that I know of one case of a young man who was not making good, and who had committed crimes in consequence of which he was sent to Stoney Mountain. He came back a carpenter. When he applied for a job they asked him where he got his training. "In Stoney Mountain", he replied. And the contractor said, "I don't care where you got your training. If you can do the job you will get the job". And he got it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word in support of the contention put forward by the hon. member for Nanaimo that active consideration should be given to decentralizing our penitentiaries so far as women are concerned. I am sure the minister, or his department, has received representations concerning this matter from a number of women's organizations who are interested.
We are all pleased to note that the number of women maintained in our penitentiaries is so small, as announced by the minister a moment ago. Nevertheless, in line with our modern acceptance of the fact that there should be no discrimination between men and women, it does seem unfair that if a man is sentenced to a penitentiary the chances are good that he will at least serve in an area where his family and relatives can visit him, whereas if a woman is sentenced to a term in a penitentiary the chances that this will be the case are very slim. I hope the consideration to be given to this matter by the minister will be very active.

Supply-Justice
I should like to ask a question with reference to a matter mentioned by the hon. member for Kingston. He referred to the new penitentiary being built at Joyceville. I wonder whether, since the new minister took over, there has been any review of the amount of money paid to, and other financial arrangements made with, Mr. Ben Franklin -I do not mean the gentleman who belongs to American history, but a gentleman alive today-concerning the purchase from Mr. Franklin of a portion of his farm which is being used for this new penitentiary.
I have in mind some questions that I asked by means of the order paper during the last parliament. The answers given by the previous minister of justice suggested to me that some quite fancy prices had been paid, and I wondered whether this matter had been reviewed by the present minister.
I have one other question to ask, and I might as well ask it while I am on my feet now so the minister can answer all these points at the same time. Would the minister comment on the fact that the grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies seem to be divided into two parts? There is an amount of $60,000 under this item, and there was an amount of $40,000 under item 173. Is there any difference in the purpose of these grants or in the kind of society to which these grants of money are made?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, may I advise the hon. gentleman that I have not reviewed the situation regarding payment for the land that was required for Joyceville. I have understood that this was a completed contract which, however it may have been negotiated, was legally in effect, and under which payment had been authorized and, indeed, made. I have not therefore embarked on an investigation of the matter, because administratively it did not seem that there was very much that could be done. If information comes to my attention-if the hon. gentleman or any one else were to give me information-suggesting that the contract should be reviewed from the point of view of possible revocation or rescission, I would be ready to consider the matter. My information is that there might be objections as to the way in which this was done, but that it is a closed incident.
On the question of the division of the amounts to be paid to prisoners' aid societies, the reason for that is fundamentally that the work done by the prisoners' aid societies in connection with those who are out on ticket of leave, the supervisory work, advice, care
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).!
and so on, is done on behalf of the remission service. That is why there is an amount under that item. There is in addition the work done under this item by the prisoners' aid societies in connection with the counselling and issuing of advice to prisoners and their families while the prisoner is in the penitentiary prior to his discharge or release on ticket of leave. That is why there are two items in the estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: notice that each of these items has been increased by $10,000 from what was provided in the previous fiscal year. Do the new totals now meet reasonably well the needs of the societies in this field?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am advised that it is expected this year the amount of $60,000 included in these estimates will be adequate to meet the need and that next year we are asking for a similar amount, namely $60,000. In the two years the distributions we will have been able to make to these societies will have been approximately 20 per cent more than in previous years. They are doing a magnificent job. Very likely we will be asking them to do more as the recommendations of the Fau-teux commission report are gradually implemented, but as yet I cannot make any definite statement as to what amounts will be asked for in subsequent years. I can tell the hon. gentleman only that the increase this year over last year is believed to be adequate, and the same amount for next year is hoped to be sufficient to meet the needs.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I have two questions on this item. How many trades are being taught at Stoney Mountain, and in how many penitentiaries are the young prisoners segregated from the older and more hardened prisoners?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am informed with regard to the second question asked by the hon. gentleman that in all the prisons the greatest possible care is taken to ensure that the living and sleeping quarters of the young inmates, the first offender type, are separated from the similar quarters for the older and more hardened type of inmate, but it is not possible in the institutions as they exist at the moment to have complete segregation in that in many cases their recreation periods may be spent in the same place and they may eat in the same place and go to church at the same time. But in so far as possible for the important periods of the day there is the maximum segregation that the physical accommodation permits.

As to the number of courses taught at Stoney Mountain, I am informed that bricklaying and stationary engineering are taught as special vocational training courses. There is the usual academic instruction to which I referred earlier, and in addition there is the normal on the job training in the shops and on the farm.


William Scottie Bryce: Would it be the policy of the present government in building new prisons or in constructing additions to existing prisons that may be made from time to time to make arrangements so the young prisoners and first offenders could be located in one prison while the more hardened prisoners could be kept in one of the older prisons?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the accepted theory of prison construction and prison administration, and as quickly as we can do it, it will be done. I am informed that in new construction it will be the basis of design. With regard to the older types of prisons, in so far as we can make modifications and indeed in so far as the designs of new prisons will permit, it will be the intention to segregate as between institutions where that is practical; and that will be borne in mind as a desirable principle.


Mr. Thompson (Edmonlon-Siralhcona):: Mr. Chairman, I note that a large number of instructors, grades 1 to 10, and rehabilitation officers grades 1 to 8 are employed in our penitentiaries. Could the minister inform us for how many of these positions, if any, university degrees are required?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the vocational training branch of the instructional work of the department it is more technical training that is required, and therefore there probably would not be very many, if any, where a university degree is a requirement. In the academic training the requirement is the normal teacher's certificate of the province from which the instructor is recruited, although extra salary allowances are made for those in possession of higher degrees of qualification. We also have in addition our special highly trained personnel such as psychiatrists, doctors and other prison personnel where a university degree is of course an absolute requirement for appointment to the position.


Sydney Herbert Stewart Thompson: Mr. Chairman, am I to understand, then, that among the rehabilitation officers there may be university men employed but that they will receive additional salary which is not shown in the estimates; or does it mean the top rating shown in the estimates is for university men?
Supply-Justice


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think the reason I have not answered the hon. gentleman's question satisfactorily is that I thought he was relating it to the general question of administration. The details he is now discussing are contained in vote No. 183. We are now discussing vote No. 182. Would it be agreeable to the committee if we were to carry 182?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
183. Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries, including supplies and services relating thereto: administration, operation, repair and upkeep of buildings, works and equipment; maintenance, discharge and transfer of inmates; compensation to discharged inmates permanently disabled while in penitentiaries, $11,002,925.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I cannot give the hon. gentleman the information at the moment. All I can say is that some would require university degrees and others would not. We would have to have a complete breakdown of the establishment at each institution in order to give a complete answer. I could obtain that information and give it to the hon. gentleman later if he wishes.


Sydney Herbert Stewart Thompson: It is
not necessary to answer my question to know how many are actually employed. I was attempting to satisfy myself about the salaries being paid to university men. It would appear from what the minister said that some of these salaries fall within those shown in this table. I should like to ask the minister whether he believes that the salaries shown there are commensurate with the type of training required to obtain a university degree?


James Ross Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman. One is always conscious of the fact that you are not paying salaries as high as those which theoretically, and indeed perhaps absolutely, it would be desirable to pay. All I can say is that the last salary revision which took place in May of this year was made absolute throughout the penitentiary staff, and the commissioner and all the senior administrative officers are fully conscious of the desirability of getting highly trained men at every level where it is sensible to have a person with a good background of education and training. I am told that in the group to which my hon. friend refers, namely the rehabilitation officers, the effect of the general increase of last May would be an average of $300 a year.


Frank Claus Christian: Mr. Chairman, in regard to item 183, I would like to refer the minister to page 253 of the estimates dealing with the

Supply-Justice
item, office stationery, supplies and equipment, $9,800, as compared with the previous estimate of $8,000. In other words, there is an increase of $1,800. First, I should like to know the reason for the increase. Then,
I have a further question which probably relates to the Department of Justice as well as to the other departments of government. When office stationery, supplies and equipment are ordered what is the method used? Are tenders called in all instances, or what is the rule? This question is important because of the fact that a lot of equipment, supplies and office stationery is used in government service. What is the method used in the purchase of such supplies?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The office stationery, supplies and equipment are, in the main, not in total, purchased through the queen's printer, which falls under the Department of the Secretary of State. There is an increase in this item. I might point out we have gone back to item 182 now, but I do not mind dealing with the matter. This item provides for the purchase of printed forms, including those printed at the penitentiary and those purchased through the department of public printing and stationery; stationery, envelopes, blotting paper and other office supplies such as pens, pencils, letterheads, carbon paper, stencils and other paper supplies; office machinery and equipment.
The main reason for the increase of $1,800 is the construction of the new penitentiary at Joyceville, which was a major undertaking and involved a great deal of supervision from headquarters-we are dealing here with the administrative item-and in addition the general, steady increase in the operations and to some extent in the population of the penitentiary system in Canada, but the main reason was the construction program at Joyceville.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has
the minister any figures showing how many inmates are permanently disabled while in penitentiaries and thus entitled to draw the compensation referred to in this item, and what is the basis on which the compensation is computed?


Edmund Davie Fulton: At the present time we are paying compensation to three inmates who were disabled while in penitentiary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
the basis similar to that of workmen's compensation in the provinces?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We consult the workmen's compensation board of the province in question

and the employees' compensation branch of the Department of Labour in arriving at the appropriate amount to be paid.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
184. Construction, improvements and equipment, $2,365,555.
Frank Claus Christian: This item involves $2,365,555. Will the minister give us the particulars of the individual amounts, and especially the item of $73,470 in regard to British Columbia.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I should say at once that this is the second item in my estimates in which I shall be asking the committee to approve of a reduction. I shall ask my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, to move that the amount of this item be reduced by $1 million.


John Angus MacLean: I so move.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When the chairman has put the question I will give an answer to the question.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Rea):: Moved by Mr. MacLean:
That item No. 184, construction, improvements and equipment, $2,365,555, be reduced by the amount of $1 million.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before the motion is carried perhaps I should say a word about this item and answer the question of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. The main reason for the substantial vote here, as compared with last year, is, of course, the Joyceville construction program. It was found, therefore, that a good deal of time was consumed in the negotiations for the purchase of the site and agreements on the purchase price. Then, in addition, there was the work that had to be done in clearing and levelling the land before the contracts could be let for the construction of the buildings, with the result that it has not been possible to spend in the fiscal year the amount that it was anticipated would be spent by way of actual contract-letting before the fiscal year was over.
As a result of the request that was made to all branches of the department to study their estimates and see where reductions could be made, I am advised that a reduction of this substantial amount can be made here without in any way prejudicing the actual construction program.
To answer the question of the hon. gentleman from Okanagan Boundary as to the item of $73,000 for British Columbia, which is found on page 256 of the estimates, the item for construction or acquisition of buildings and works is $53,675, and the total for warehouse building is $20,000, which I think accounts for $73,675. There is a discrepancy there of about $125 and I shall see if I can find it.


Mr. Chevrier:: May I get from the minister some further explanation of the motion to reduce item 184? Is it the intention to take up this reduction of $1 million in supplementary estimates or is the program for construction under that item being effected by the removal of certain buildings? I do not know that I understood fully the explanation which the minister gave a moment ago and I wonder whether he would be good enough to supplement it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The main reason why we are able to move a reduction in the construction item as shown is that it has not been possible to proceed with the actual construction of the new institution at Joyceville as rapidly as possible due to delays in the final negotiation of the purchase price of the property and payment of that purchase price; due to delays in the architectural design of the building and to the necessity of extensive levelling and clearing of the site. The result is it will not be possible actually to let contracts during the fiscal year for the full amount anticipated, and I am advised that we can safely reduce the item by $1 million. We have items in the supplementary estimates but I believe in the main they were submitted before we found it possible to reduce this construction item and they are in different votes.


Lionel Chevrier: Does this item refer exclusively to the building at Joyceville?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: And the progress of the building will not be interrupted? It will be continued and the money will be voted in some other item?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, the money will be voted next year in the 1958-59 estimates. I may say I went into this fairly carefully because I was concerned lest, as a result of the reduction, we might be lessening the chances of providing additional employment through construction this winter. I am advised it is simply not possible. We have let all the contracts we can covering the stage to which preparations and planning have now gone, and therefore this is simply an item which does not reduce our power to provide employment this winter.
Plans are continuing to be prepared. We have the matter fully covered in next year's estimates and contracts will be let on a continuous basis but they cannot be let before March 31. I might also say for the information of the committee that to date contracts for construction have been let totalling $804,287 for administration building No. 1, power plant building No. 12 and the steam generating plant and high level water tank.
Supply-Justice
Tenders have been called for the hospital and chapels building No. 2, accommodation building No. 3, automotive and shop building No. 11, and other tenders are expected to be called prior to March 31 for the stores building, maintenance shop and laundry building, shop building, and kitchen building.


Harold Edward Winch: Is it not a fact that a great deal of the construction and improvement work in penitentiaries is done by the inmates themselves? If that is the case, and I know it is because I have seen some of that work, has consideration been given by the minister to the payment of unemployment insurance to prisoners released from custody? Some hon. members may smile but it is a very serious proposition.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not smile.


Harold Edward Winch: If you interest yourself in penitentiary inmates and the problems of penology, you will know that one of the big problems arises in connection with the rehabilitation of those persons who are released after serving their sentences. When a man is released he has very little money in his pockets and he has not a job. When men have been incarcerated behind walls and bars for 2, 5, 10 or 15 years and are then released, being human one of the first things they want is a fling. By the time they have had their fling, and it is only human that they should, they do not have much money left and they do not have a job.
It is tough enough, particularly at the present time, for the law-abiding citizen who needs a job to find one, but when a person has a prison record it is most difficult to obtain work even though a certain amount of help is given. These people are not entitled to unemployment insurance, have no money in their pockets, and cannot get a job. On far too many occasions they develop a feeling of frustration, "what's the use", and they take up crime again and are back in the penitentiary where it costs the taxpayers $4.63 a day per person to keep them.
In view of the fact that every year we vote money for construction and improvements and that nearly all of these men are sentenced to hard labour as they should be, I think it might be an excellent investment if they were paid for the work they do by the purchase of unemployment stamps on their behalf. Then if they could not find a job on coming out of prison there would be no reason to return to their criminal ways, because they would be entitled to unemployment insurance. Has the minister given any thought to something of that nature?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand that the hon. gentleman is not quite correct when he says

Supply-Justice
that the majority of the construction in the voting it for the first time next year. Never-penitentiaries is done by the inmates. They theless we still congratulate the minister on do work on the farms, in the shops, and being able to introduce the motion in this day to day maintenance and upkeep.	particular round figure.


Harold Edward Winch: And building.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -but I am informed they do not do any major construction that would be described as being of a contractual nature.


Harold Edward Winch: If the minister will visit the penitentiary at New Westminster he will see the wonderful work that was done there last year on the extension of the office building and reception rooms, the installation of a new system of drainage and that sort of thing. It is all being done by the inmates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not appreciate the information given to me by my advisers. The point they were making is that the inmates would not be doing the type of construction which we were referring to a moment earlier at Joyceville, but it is correct to say that they do an appreciable amount of construction work within the walls of the penitentiaries by way of remodelling and so on. I am advised that discussions have taken place with the unemployment insurance commission on the point the hon. member mentioned but we have not reached any agreement as yet. Until the unemployment insurance commission will come around to the point of view expressed by the hon. member there is not much we can do. Perhaps he would address his remarks to one of my colleagues.


Harold Edward Winch: I will do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we are all happy to congratulate the minister on being able to move another reduction in his estimates. I have the feeling that it must give him particular pleasure, bearing in mind the famous phrase "what's a million", to be able to move a reduction in the amount of $1 million. However, I think we should realize that this is largely a bookkeeping matter. As I look into the details of the estimates I discover that in 1956-57, despite the fact there was a larger vote, the total amount spent under this item was $1,392,000 odd. With respect to 1957-58, even after the $1 million reduction, we will still be voting $1,365,555. In other words, the amount to be spent in 1957-58 will be more or less the same as the amount that was actually spent in 1956-57.
Hence, on that score it is really a bookkeeping transaction. The minister has also pointed out that this money will be voted in next year's estimates. In other words, it is simply a choice between voting it this year, not spending it and revoting it next year, or
(Mr. Fulton.]


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
626. Expenses of the Royal commission on the criminal law relating to criminal sexual phycho-paths, $7,500.
Douglas Mason Fisher: I just wonder whether the minister has been following the developments that have taken place in England on this matter and whether he has any views to express at this time on the changes that have been contemplated there in the treatment of sexual psychopaths.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I speak subject to correction but I am reasonably certain that the report has not yet been received. My recollection of the latest position is that Chief Justice McRuer advised us that the taking of evidence and the studies had been completed and that he is working on the report at the present time. If I am incorrect, I will correct my statement and give the hon. gentleman a supplementary answer tomorrow.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am sure the minister is correct. I was wondering whether he was following what has been happening in the public discussions in England on these matters and whether,-how shall I phrase it-as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests, they are receiving their active attention.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Indeed yes. We follow these things and the officers of the department follow them, those who are interested and whose administrative responsibility will be covered. They keep abreast of them. But before we could make any intelligent conclusion based upon what is happening elsewhere I think we must wait until we receive the report of the royal commission which was set up especially to deal with the matter. They too will, I am quite certain, be following these developments in other countries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Yukon territorial court-
698. Administration, including administration of justice-Yukon territory-further amount required, $10,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just want to say a word or two on this item. I might not be strictly in order but I intended to be here last night and was kept in my office by a visitor dealing with an extremely important matter concerning my constituency. I notice that the hon. member for Trinity-Conception was a bit sticky about one gentleman of the legal

profession congratulating another on his appointment to office. But as the most ancient of this group from British Columbia, and a very humble layman indeed, I want to extend very sincere congratulations to the minister on his appointment to the very important office he now holds. The minister's family history has been very closely woven into the fabric of the public life of British Columbia over a great number of years, to the advantage of the province of British Columbia and to the great credit of his family. I wish him every happiness in the performance of his duties and every success.
This item deals with the courts of the Yukon. However, I wanted to make this observation. I have had something to do with the courts, strictly as a spectator or a witness, and I have always been proud, in my considerable experience in that direction, of the courts of Canada. I think we sometimes fail to realize the high standard of administration that prevails in this country.
In contrast with that, I have in my files much correspondence concerning a young Canadian who was sentenced to life imprisonment in the United States in the superior court in 14 minutes. I have in my file a letter from one of the counsel concerning the case. The case occurred during an election, when the judge was seeking election as were the crown prosecutor, as we would call him, and the sheriff and when public opinion in the town concerned was somewhat against the defendant. In this letter he mentions the fact that owing to public opinion, the election and the need for votes, the prosecutor could do nothing other than recommend the maximum sentence, and the judge agreed with the recommendation on that ground. I just mention that matter in order to indicate what can happen in other countries. I am quite sure that something of that nature could never happen in the administration of justice in Canada. I mention that matter because I think some of our young people fail to realize the extremely high standards that have been maintained in this country, particularly with respect to the administration of the criminal law.
Before I sit down I want to bring to the attention of the minister something which I have had in mind for some time because of being interested in court procedure, the appointment of juries, their composition and so on. The jury system is a very important part of our administration of justice which we inherited from Great Britain where it was established shortly after the Norman conquest. It has an important function in the administration of justice. It is necessary that persons
Supply-Justice who are appointed to juries have an understanding of their responsibility and an understanding of the system.
I was just going to suggest this to the minister. I do not know whether or not he could put it into effect. Some time ago I happened to pick up a small pamphlet issued by the sheriff of Carleton county. I was very much surprised to find such a progressive pamphlet coming from such a Conservative county in Canadian history. In any event, I think the sheriff showed a great deal of intelligence in publishing a little pamphlet of information for jurors. It gives a little bit of information concerning the history of the jury system, the types of juries that are established including the grand jury, the petit jury and so on and then some information for jurors.
I think it would be an excellent thing if the practice were followed by all the attorneys general in the provinces of Canada so that all persons who are appointed to juries and who are required to act on juries might be given this information. In many cases these people have had no previous experience in jury service and in many cases they have little understanding of what a jury is. I suggest that the minister recommend to the attorneys general of the provinces that some such pamphlet be published and distributed to all persons called to sit on a jury before they commence to perform their duty. I think it would be most worth while and would give many of these people a better understanding of the importance of the duty they are going to perform, of their responsibility and of the procedures that are traditional in the jury system.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would be less than human, to say nothing of being less than courteous, if I did not express to my hon. friend my very real appreciation of the extraordinarily kind things he has just said about me. I know too that he says them on the basis of the tremendous interest and historical background that he and his family have in our province of British Columbia with which so much of his activities and those of his family have been so closely identified, in the Kootenay area especially, over the past three generations, anyway certainly since before the beginning of this century.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Biblical generations.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes; that is what I had in mind. I thank the hon. gentleman and assure him that I hope to deserve the kind things he said. I quite agree with him about the desirability of impressing upon jurors the importance and the very fine composition of the responsibilities that they discharge. If the hon. gentleman would be kind enough to let me have a copy of the pamphlet I think I could

Supply-Justice
give him an undertaking right now that I will get in touch with the sheriff for Carleton and ask him if he will let us have sufficient copies to send a sample to each of the attorneys general.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
B-Penitentiaries-
700. To provide for a credit to the revolving fund established pursuant to vote 628 of the Appropriation Act No. 2. 1955, to meet the deficiency arising from over-valuation of inventory, $6,642.
Stanley Howard Knowles: notice that this item is supplementary to another supplementary which in effect is supplementary to an item of a previous year. Could the minister explain it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. This particular item arises out of the need for an adjustment of the revolving fund in compliance with the terms of section 58, subsection (5) of the Financial Administration Act. An apparent shortage in the fund was brought to light at the end of the fiscal year 1955 to 1956 amounting to $9,075. Investigation subsequently revealed that this is attributable mainly to an overvaluation of $9,141 in inventory carried at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary and on hand at the previous year end.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That would be when the revolving fund was first set up.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When the revolving fund was first set up, that is correct. This excess occurred as a result of its physical inventory being taken as of March 31, 1955, compared to an earlier March cutoff date in justice treasury records and this apparent excess physical value over the books formed part of a large surplus in the funds credited to "revenue" at that time. The consequence of this unreal surplus was to create a deficiency in the fund upon inventories being taken a year later which was reduced to some extent by a surplus in the operation of the fund meanwhile.
These circumstances were brought to the notice of the comptroller of the treasury who advised that it was not possible to reverse the error retractively. Thus, the artificial deficiency has been carried forward from March 31, 1955 and continued to be reflected in the revolving fund, subject to a surplus of $2,433 in its operations as of March 31, 1957. This reduced the apparent surplus, the incorrect surplus, or rather it reduced the deficiency resulting from the previous incorrect surplus to $6,642. The purpose of this item is to enable us to adjust the books by voting funds which will restore the revolving fund to its correct amount as at April 1, 1957.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What would be the amount of that revolving fund at par?


Edmund Davie Fulton: $300,000 at par as of April 1, 1957 but increased to $600,000 by an item in the supplementaries of this year.


Alexis Pierre Caron: On that point, I wonder if the minister just out of interest could tell us what caused the deficiency in the first place. Was it a part of the inventory that was stolen or was it overvaluation or what?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am informed it was simple overvaluation owing to a time lag, if you like, or a difference in the time at which the inventory was entered as against the time the valuation was taken.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Henri Courtemanche: May I ask the minister if he is ready to deal with item 181 or does he wish to let it stand?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary both asked me for information with regard to the number of bankruptcies. I do not wish, Mr. Chairman, to take advantage of these gentlemen-I see that neither of them are in the house-I would therefore like to defer giving this answer until they are present. May I ask that the item stand.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
Headquarters administration, national police services and training establishments-
396. Administration, operation and maintenance, $7,329,030.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, in making the comments I wish to make on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police I would like at the start to underline that there is no particular prejudice in my mind against the force but through a contact I had with them a number of years ago-in fact during the thirties-my first impression of the mounted police was when I saw them equipped with a wand ot ashwood going to work on some marches across the country and ever since then 1 have had a quizzical eye cast towards them One of the things which is bothering me is the fact that they have been identified with comic strips and glamorous stories anc have become a tourist symbol synonymous with Canada itself. There is nothing wronj with that at all, but the stricture that comes to mind is this organization which is sc glamorous and so popular and which has hac such a tremendous expansion in the last 20 oi 30 years until it now has a budget of $4( million or more and is a very substantia' force also happens to be our security or yot might say our secret police force.
I want to bring into this discussion the words of one of our intellectual mavericks

Professor Lower of Queen's University, who has put in a way much better than I could the fundamental danger in terms of individual liberties in the present trend of the R.C.M.P. organization in its relationship to security. The remarks of Professor Lower were occasioned of course by the Norman case and the fact that the R.C.M.P. sent a report to Washington in October 1950 which informed the United States security agencies that it had received a report from one of its secret sources that Mr. Norman was a member of the Canadian communist party. Later on the R.C.M.P. informed the United States authorities that they had discovered this was a case of mistaken identity. However, Professor Lower says in the July 6 issue of Macleans in an article entitled "Is the R.C.M.P. a Threat to Our Liberty?":
Few more damning statements about an agency of government can ever have been published. Here is a responsible branch collecting any and all types of hearsay and rumor from "unidentified sub-sources"-in other words, tittle-tattle passed on by irresponsible gossiping-and handing it over to the American secret police, whence it later turns up in congressional committees which, whatever their purpose, publicize it throughout the world.
I realize that the minister is not responsible for the growth of the R.C.M.P. over past years or for its policies or activities, but I am wondering if he shares or has shared any of the concern, as someone interested in justice and in the operation of our security system, in the point of view of individuals concerned with liberty such as Professor Lower and, I might add, myself. Professor Lower goes on at page 57 of his article to say:
Yet apparently rumour-collecting is one of the R.C.M.P.'s functions. Worse still, it hands this trash over to representatives of a foreign power, for them to use at their discretion. Surely such activity is more dangerous to our liberty than the threats it is supposed to guard us against.
May I point out that I cannot guarantee that the expression of opinion by Professor Lower is the exact or complete truth, but I do think it is sufficiently accurate and expressed of opinion that we should have from the minister a statement with regard to it.
During the war, as was pointed out, there was a tremendous emphasis on security. Many members of parliament became conscious of it in relation to the fact that some of their constituents wished to become citizens but discovered that they could not get citizenship papers. As I mentioned this morning, there was some kind of review, and I believe the Royal Canadian Mounted Police played a fundamental role in this. A number of people have had the embarrassing experience of getting to the boundary of our neighbour to the south and discovering that they were not
Supply-Justice
allowed into the United States because, somehow, a secret report had apparently been filed with the United States authorities.
I think all this requires one to pinpoint the operations of the R.C.M.P. in this regard, and I might in closing express the hope that the minister will seriously consider separating the secret police functions of the R.C.M.P. from the other aspects of its work which have been so glamorized and put forward as something identical with Canada. There is nothing evil about this work, and it has to be done, but I think it is a function which could be separated from the other duties of the force.
There is one further question I should like to ask in connection with the R.C.M.P. and that is whether any discussions have taken place with regard to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, section 37, subsection 2 which deals with the unauthorized use of the words "Royal Canadian Mounted Police" and its utilization as any sort of trademark or symbol in commercial activities.


Donald Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I should like to pursue the heart of the matter which my colleague from Port Arthur has brought up, because there has come to my attention what is, in my view, a very dangerous position. I had the experience two or three years ago of receiving a letter from a personal friend who asked me if I could make some inquiries about a situation in which he found himself involved. He is a member of an international organization-not a labour organization, but an organization which is international in North America-and he was chosen as a delegate to attend a conference in the United States. He made inquiries from his employer to obtain leave of absence to attend this conference, but he was informed by his employer that it was useless for him to take this leave of absence because he would not be permitted to cross the border, as he had been the subject of an investigation by the R.C.M.P. Naturally enough my friend was rather dismayed about this, and it turned out later that he was almost the only person in Nanaimo who did not know he was being investigated by the mounted police, that he was being investigated on the suspicion of having communist affiliations.
There are two points involved here. The first is that the two officers who, I found, conducted the investigation were-and I am trying to put the most charitable construction I can on it,-political innocents, babes in arms who were quite incapable of assessing whether or not a certain individual had communist affiliations or sympathies and, moreover they failed signally to contact people who might very readily have supplied them

Supply-Justice
with the whole of the background on this particular man who is a native of the district and whose record is an open book. They never contacted me, although it must have been known to them-it should have been at least-that he was my financial agent in the election of 1953.
There is another angle to this. I cannot avoid the conclusion that this investigation was instigated and initiated not by the R.C.M.P. but by the security agency of another power; that, in effect, the R.C.M.P. was in this instance acting as agents for the federal bureau of investigation. Indeed, this became perfectly evident later when we found that officials of this organization in the United States had been anxious to have this particular man, and others in Canada, excluded from the convention in the United States.
I was quite understandably, not given any definite information with regard to this matter when I applied to the mounted police headquarters, but I do think that what is involved here is a very serious question. I quite understand that the security forces of both the United States and Canada must work in conjunction in certain matters, such as certain criminal activities, but I do think it is an intolerable situation when Canadian citizens are subjected to an investigation at the instigation of a foreign organization in respect of points of view, and even definite affiliations, which are not contrary to Canadian law. In addition to that, I would point out that the investigation, in this instance at any rate, was carried out in the most clumsy and amateurish manner and caused the most acute embarrassment to my friend when it turned out that all his friends and neighbours had been contacted and asked if they thought he had communist affiliations and sympathies.
I should like to have some assurance that in future the R.C.M.P. will be given firm instructions that they are not to investigate the private lives of Canadian citizens at the instigation of a foreign power except on suspicion of some contravention of the Criminal Code of Canada. In this particular instance, of course, the matter was never cleared up. It was merely dropped, and my friend got across the line to the United States. But today most people, if not everybody, in Nanaimo know that my friend was investigated by the R.C.M.P. They do not know what he was investigated for, and they do not know whether the matter was ever cleared up. What happened has caused the most acute embarrassment.
So, Mr. Chairman, I suggest we should carry out investigations of Canadian citizens

only at the instigation of Canadian authorities, and that when we do so we should employ people who can be relied upon to have some knowledge of the sort of thing they are investigating. This is a situation which needs to be cleared up, and it can, I think, be cleared up by decisive action on the part of the minister.


William Arnold Peters: I also should like to say something on this matter. A number of years ago when I was attending school in Ottawa it was brought to my attention at that time there was an organization interested in organizing the student bodies of colleges across Canada, and there was some question of whether or not that was a left wing or a very left wing organization. I was delegated to go to various sources and find out whether it was advisable for the college which I was attending to affiliate or not. One of the places to which I went was the R.C.M.P. headquarters here in Ottawa. We discussed the case, and I mentioned several people who were involved and of whom I had some previous knowledge. But I was very surprised when the commissioner at that time suggested to one of his assistants that he check on the files of myself and one of the other gentlemen about whom I had been inquiring. And I was very surprised when they brought out a file on myself which was much larger than the file on the other gentleman. The commissioner told me that this file contained information, not of a criminal nature of any description, but information strictly of a political nature. It was a political file. It mentioned the fact, among other things, that I had been partly responsible for placing a petition before the House of Commons, and matters of that nature. Returning to the purpose of my visit, the commissioner asked me what information I had on this gentleman. At that time I took my leave and told him that I could get the information and he could get his information the same way.
The question I ask is this. Why should that file have been kept in the first place? Are those the only files that are kept? I have been told by other people that there are files kept on everybody in political life which are in the possession of the R.C.M.P. in Ottawa. I have been informed that these files contain excruciating details about the people concerned. In fact I was told that one contains a certain gentleman's record, a report on his performance in a baseball game. There was some question, I understand, of his applying for a pension at one time through the D.V.A. and the information that he had knocked out a few home runs

was recorded in that file. I suppose he was not eligible for a pension because he was in good condition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did he knock them into the left field?


William Arnold Peters: I was not advised into what field he knocked them but he certainly must have knocked them into the political field in order for the mounted police to have kept a record of it. I have another question to raise. Under what circumstances does the R.C.M.P. have the right to demand information given by those people who saw fit to volunteer in the last war including fingerprints and other identification marks? Under what circumstances and conditions are they allowed to distribute that type of information across the country?
With regard to the political file kept on myself I wish to point out that it is also kept at all the border crossing points. I am using my own case as an example because it is one of hundreds and after being checked it was found that there was nothing criminal involved in it. Whenever I go to cross at a border point, without any questions being asked in particular except my name and a few other pertinent facts, I am asked to step inside and they haul out the file examine it and then comment that everything is fine, there is nothing in it.
I am wondering if the R.C.M.P. have set up files of this type as anti-labour files to be used in certain instances? In cases where files are maintained, under what circumstances is the information contained therein given to the provincial police force, the municipal police, and municipal and provincial courts of law. Is the information that is kept distributed generously and indiscriminately to other sources. Is the purpose of the R.C.M.P. in small communities to supervise such acts as the one in which the Minister of Justice has been so interested relating to the improper use of comic magazines and that type of thing or is that administered by some other group in this country. I am inclined to believe that the police spend more time on this political aspect than they do on some of the work they are supposed to do. If a file is maintained on myself I am quite sure there is no one in the House of Commons today on whom the R.C.M.P. do not maintain a file. If that is so, how many personnel are involved in this and to what extent is the provincial police force used for that purpose?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think I must answer one of the remarks made by the hon. member for Timiskaming immediately. I understand and I think I can state as a fact that there is not a file kept on every one 06698-200
Supply-Justice
in public life in Canada. Files are started only if there comes to the attention of the police, either of their own discovery as it were or by virtue of some report which they receive, information which appears to warrant the starting of a file in connection with anyone whether he be in political life or in any other form of activity. It will I am sure be appreciated that quite often information is received which, if correct, would warrant the gathering of further information, the opening of a file and the conduct of an investigation. In many cases the investigation reveals the fact that the original information received was not correct and the file then becomes inoperative. It is still retained on file, it is true, but it is inoperative and nothing further is ever done with it unless some organization, it could be a police force, which has a legitimate interest in knowing what information is on that file and some one who will establish his entitlement or right to get that information asks for it. Only in such a case is the information given to any one other than the proper authorities in the police force itself.
I think I must at once correct what would otherwise stand as uncontradicted assertions, namely that there is a file on everyone in political life. That is not correct. The other assertion that information is distributed across the country, I can assure the hon. gentleman, is not a correct assertion. It is given only to persons who establish their right to it and their proper interest in the matter and who must also establish the fact that they will keep it confidential in the way in which it is supposed to be kept.


Louis Harrington Lewry: Mr. Chairman, on the point the minister just mentioned, during the last election campaign in Saskatchewan a member of parliament at that time was reported to have had available to himself, and was flashing on the public platform in a constituency which I will make clear now was not my own, a portion of an R.C.M.P. file on a man of different political opinion from himself. The minister said the information would be made available to members of the police force and I am interested in knowing if such information would be made available to a member of parliament or any other officer within the government for use for political purposes? I should like to have the minister's assurance that this is not the case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, if I said what the hon. gentleman suggests that I said, I was incorrect. It is not given to every policeman. It will be made available to the proper

Supply-Justice
authorities in other police forces, not generally to the members of other police forces, if a file is requested and proper entitlement to it is established.
With regard to the specific question, I can only say that not only is a file not made available generally but the existence of a file is not made known except to a person authorized to receive the information that a file exists. If a member of parliament, as the hon. gentleman states, had a portion of an R.C.M.P. file and was, as he said, flashing it around, I can only assume that it came into his possession improperly. If he were shown a file on a confidential basis in connection with some matter in which it was felt he might have had a legitimate interest then I can only say he was in gross breach of the confidence which was reposed in him when he was shown that portion of the file. A file would never be made available to anybody on the basis that it might be used on a political platform.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would pursue the point raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming when he said that in his case when he attempts to cross the international border there seems to be some evidence that there is information at the border that there is a file on him. I gathered from the account given that the border officials look into the file and see there is nothing there. Would that accord with the minister's information that there would be knowledge on the part of the border officials of the fact that there was even an inoperative file back in the office of the R.C.M.P.? In relation to this I express the view that if a file becomes inoperative then it is clear that there was nothing that needed to be investigated at all. If that is so, why should that file continue to exist at all?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand the hon. member for Timiskaming is referring to the United States border officials, not the Canadian.


William Arnold Peters: I presume the Canadian officials also. The file that I know of is at Detroit and Rouses Point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When the hon. gentleman is subjected to this questioning is it by the Canadian border officials or the United States?


William Arnold Peters: I think it is the Canadian, whomever you have to see.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If you are going across the border usually you have to report out at the Canadian immigration and report in at the United States customs and immigration. When you come back you report out at the
tMr. Fulton.]
United States immigration and report in at Canadian customs and immigration.


William Arnold Peters: I am not sure which it is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whichever way it is, does it not point up the situation? If there is what the minister refers to as an inoperative file, and if the knowledge in that inoperative file is placed in the hands of border officials on either side of the border, is that not in contravention of our concepts of civil liberties?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are talking so much in the dark here that I find it difficult to give a definite answer. If the information were in the hands of the United States border officials then, of course, we would have no way of regulating what they did with it, even if it were inoperative.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who gave them the Canadian file. How would they get it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The information might have come to their attention in any one of a number of ways and I am going to suggest a way which will show how difficult it is to deal with this case in broad generalities and without knowing what are the facts. It is quite possible, for instance, that there may be a notorious criminal with the same name as that of the hon. gentleman. That is not a far-fetched possibility. His name is not an unusual one, and therefore it would be quite normal for our border officials, in normal co-operation with the United States border officials, to be informed-


Stanley Howard Knowles: There might be a two-gun Fulton.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is quite possible. The Canadian officials might be informed that this person may be crossing the border. Somebody turns up with that name and the proper officials on both sides of the border would check to make sure whether he is the man on whom they have the file and for whom we are watching, or whether he is somebody else, let us say, Smith, other than the one in the file. I do not think any hon. member would object either to that exchange of information between ourselves and the United States authorities or to our border people or their border people keeping those files on hand. That may not be the explanation of the case of the hon. gentleman, but I do not know what the situation is in his case, in the absence of concrete information. It seems to me that what we are all indulging in is speculation that will not help anybody.


Donald Cameron: Perhaps I can clear up that part of the situation by completing the story

I told you a little while ago. I was informed, after I had interviewed the commissioner, that I could inform my friend in Nanaimo that he would have no difficulty in crossing the border. Presumably the Canadian authorities have no particular interest in preventing Canadian citizens in crossing the United States border. That is something for the United States officials to be concerned about. Therefore if my friend had any difficulty in crossing the border it could only have been on the basis of information supplied to the United States officials, and it would have been information not revealing that he was guilty of any criminal activity in Canada at all or being in any position that is against the Canadian law.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the hon. gentleman's statement is too sweeping when he says that the information given to the United States officials could only have come from a Canadian source. I think that is making too wide a statement. Let me put it to him in reverse. We have a large number of border crossings from the United States into Canada. It is the policy of the Canadian government, and I believe it is the policy of the Canadian people, that we should not admit into our country persons who are undesirable. We do not have any information on them but when they present themselves as applicants to cross the border the only place where we can get that information is from the country of origin. Yet we require that information to determine whether a person is suitable to be allowed to cross the border, whether as an immigrant, a visitor, or in any other category, and if we require that information from countries from which people come to cross our border we will not get very far in receiving that information if we in turn were to refuse to give the information in our possession on persons in Canada who may be crossing the border the other way. It seems to me the matter is as simple as that. I would be quite prepared to accept the criticism and to regret it and to assure the hon. gentleman that we will do our best to improve the standard where he says that the investigation was conducted carelessly and resulted in embarrassment and perhaps even unnecessary suffering and some loss on the part of the person investigated.
I make no comment on the justification of the investigation because I do not know the facts. Anyone in charge of a department and of a force would say, as I say now, that the desire is to have the best qualified persons employed in that force and carrying on the work of that force; and certainly with respect to the security type of work that the hon. gentleman has brought before us today it is necessary to have the highest degree of skill in order to carry out that sort of investigation.
96698-200J
Supply-Justice
It may be that the investigation was not carried out with that degree of skill; I do not know, but I can say that it is my desire and the desire of the commissioner constantly to improve the standard of all branches of the force so that there should be no cause for complaint on that or any other ground.
On the ground of the general proposition that information is exchanged I think it would be obvious that information has to be exchanged. It seems to me that the thing to be looked at is that we control the exchange of information and we certainly control the accuracy of the information and that we control the release of the information.


Donald Cameron: There is another point that should be cleared up and that is, what yardstick do you apply to the term "desirability" because we have a rather different yardstick in Canada?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In what context?


Donald Cameron: We have a different yardstick from that which obtains in other parts of the world, particularly in the United
States?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In what context does the hon. member use the word "desirability"?


Donald Cameron: The minister mentioned the fact that it was our duty, if you like, to make sure that a person was a desirable person. In Canadian law a person may be a perfectly desirable Canadian citizen, but there might be other countries which do not regard him as being desirable for reasons which we do not consider valid. Does the minister apply their yardstick to Canadian citizens?


James Ross Fulton: No, my understanding is- and I shall look into this to make sure that I am correct-that we do not in any case where Canadian authorities are asked to investigate make any attempt to assess the result of the investigation. It is merely a factual report that goes out and it is up to the persons who may be applying, who are interested in receiving the information, to assess it and apply their standards. In the same way, if we ourselves were to receive reports we would not rely on someone else's assessment; we would have to make that assessment ourselves in accordance with our own standard.


Mr. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway):: :
Since the hon. member for Timiskaming has referred to himself and said there is a file that may be his but probably is not his at all,, I should like to say something that he was too modest to say, and say it with some knowledge of the labour movement and some knowledge of my hon. friend. He is well: known in the labour movement as one of those

Supply-Justice
who have had a great deal to do with ridding Canadian trade unionism of communist or foreign influences. He happens to belong to a trade union with which I am familiar and which succeeded some time ago in ridding itself of these influences. I happen to know that he is actively associated with the group in that union that succeeded in doing that. Part of the record of Canadian labour, which has a very low degree of communist infiltration, is due to the painstaking and hardworking efforts of people like the hon. member for Timiskaming.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I used an example. I must confess that I probably should have known but you see that we do not keep very complete files in the R.C.M.P. I did not know of the hon. gentleman's background. I used an example in that case because I do know the hon. gentleman's name and I know it is quite a usual name in Canada. That is the only reason I say it might well be that at the border there are files on other people with the same name. That was the only reason I gave that example. Perhaps I should have used the name "Smith", but then there are some members in the house by that name and I might have offended them.


Donald Cameron: Would the minister answer this question? Does the Royal Canadian Mounted Police undertake an investigation of any Canadian citizen at the instigation of a foreign power?


Edmund Davie Fulton: X think the answer to that is that we would exercise our judgment as to whether it was a proper request, whether there was any proper interest established, either on their part or ours, which would justify us in carrying out such an investigation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
discussing the exchange of information a few moments ago the minister said that it was not the endeavour of the Canadian authorities to assess the meaning of information but rather just to give the F.B.I., for example, factual information obtained as the result of an investigation in this country. It seems to me that one of the matters that should be considered, in the review of these procedures which I hope the minister will undertake, is the fact that in another country the assessment made of facts that are understood in the Canadian context might be quite unfair.
I think, for example, of some of the organizations that we may have had in our Canadian colleges and universities in the past. Some of the names that apply to organizations of various kinds in Canada mean one thing

to us and mean something else to the authorities in another country. I think that consideration might be given whether there should not sometimes go with the facts an assessment or evaluation as to the real meaning of these connections if the information is given at all.
I agree with Professor Lower that we should lean the other way and be very careful about exchanging this information at all.
There are two questions I should like to ask the minister while I am on my feet. First of all, I should like to ask him if all the files of the Royal Caandian Mounted Police are open to him as Minister of Justice at any time?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answer is yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am very glad to hear that. This is my other question. Has the Minister of Justice received from the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a request that he, as Minister of Justice, review the procedures of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the investigation of prospective immigrants. If the Minister of Justice has received such a request from the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has the Minister of Justice assured the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that he will meet that request?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Justice and the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration do not go through the involved process described by the hon. gentleman. The Minister of Justice authorizes the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. to meet with the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and to discuss with him and review thoroughly the processes by which the investigations to which the hon. gentleman has just referred are carried on and also to review with him all related problems which arise when reports are received as the result of these investigations involving prospective immigrants, and the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the commissioner carry on these discussions directly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am very pleased to hear that. When these gentlemen meet, will it be over two cups of tea or three?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will probably have a parliamentary assistant with me so it will be three.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Since the files of the R.C.M.P. are open to the minister, does that mean that a member of parliament, through his right to place questions on the order paper, can discover statistically some of the facts about these files? I do not mean the contents but

the quantity. For example, how many inoperative files are there on members of parliament? That is the sort of question I have in mind. Would that be possible?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is difficult to generalize because when you generalize you give an answer without realizing its implications. I think the approach would be that such information as could be given without contravening grounds of public policy would be given and should be given, but just where the line should be drawn I am not able to say at the moment. For instance, if you answer one question, then at what point do you refuse to answer the next question? There is some danger that if you start to answer any questions in this particular field you may open a door by which you may be forced into apparent inconsistencies in subsequent refusals or else into going all the way and revealing information which might be neither in the public interest nor in the interest of the individual concerned.
All I can say there is what I said at the beginning, that whatever information can be given safely in accordance with sound policy should be given. There are restrictions against making all information known in the form of a public return. There are fewer restrictions against making it known on a confidential basis where you are satisfied as to the legitimacy of the interest of the person inquiring and of his capacity, as would be the case almost without question with members of parliament, to maintain the confidentiality with which he received the information.


William Arnold Peters: Now that the government has changed, does the minister see much point in maintaining this Canadian investigation branch to investigate political probabilities? Does he see any point in maintaining the division or is he prepared to indicate whether he might be considering disposing of some of these files? I think it would hinge on whether the purpose of maintaining the file was to build up a case or whether it involved national security and citizenship matters. Has the minister given any consideration to the elimination of the part of this branch that appears to me to be detrimental to our Canadian way of life?
If there appeared to be anything that contravened Canadian law in a criminal or other sense then I would agree completely that such files should be maintained and used for reference purposes, presenting a case in court or whatever other reason might arise. However, if these files are just being maintained more or less in case somebody may need them some day, then I do not see
Supply-Justice
any reason for doing so. I think the minister will agree that many of these files were initiated originally under governments of days gone by and that it might be quite proper to dispose of them if they are not serving any particular purpose.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am informed by the commissioner that they strip the files as and when they can. When a file is definitely inoperative or dead it would be disposed of but it is a problem as to how much of your time and effort you devote to stripping files and how much you devote to carrying on the police work for which the force is responsible. However, I understand it is not the case that a file once opened is kept forever. If the case comes to a dead end, if it becomes obvious that the purpose for which the investigation was first opened is no longer a real purpose, then the file is closed, and as I understand it it will be disposed of at the first reasonable opportunity so that no one will ever know about it.
On the question of whether we should dispense with the work of that section of the force, I cannot agree that it does not perform a very useful, valuable and important function. As I said earlier, it seems to me that the problem and the objectives should be rather to make sure that the function is performed efficiently and thoroughly and that the interest of the public and of individuals is safeguarded by the secrecy and confidentiality of the information so that it is never put to an improper purpose. It seems to me that is what the objective should be.


Alfred Claude Ellis: For my own information I wonder whether the minister could tell the committee at whose instigation an investigation is commenced. For example, I am thinking of an employer desiring an investigation of an employee. Could he under certain circumstances make representations to the R.C.M.P. to initiate an investigation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand that investigation could not be made unless it was in connection with a defence contract; that is to say in the ordinary course of employer and employee relationships no private employer could come along and say "I want my employee investigated". He could not do that through the R.C.M.P.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Generally speaking, on whose authority is it done or who gives instructions to the R.C.M.P. to undertake the investigation of a particular individual.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the hon. gentleman must mean in the sense of an employee in a

Supply-Justice
defence industry working on a defence contract. The instruction would be received from the Department of Defence Production.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I understand that under those circumstances an investigation might be commenced, but I am thinking of employees apart from employees working in defence industries. I am thinking in more general terms and I am wondering who undertakes the initiative or on whose instructions and recommendations are the R.C.M.P. empowered or instructed to carry on an investigation of any individual.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will ask the commissioner. If the Royal Canadian Mounted Police receive information which on the face of it appears to have any semblance of reliability and to fontain in it anything of a serious nature with regard to the security of the state in so far as it concerns an individual, then they would investigate as a result of the receipt of that information. But, as I say, it must be information which on the face of it, has some degree of reliability and which on the face of it discloses something of concern so far as the interests of the state are concerned.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I would gather that information forthcoming in a letter from an individual somewhere might be grounds for investigation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not suppose much attention is paid to anonymous letters. I do not suppose they are completely disregarded but they would not be treated very seriously. It is difficult to categorize the exact sort of information that might give rise to an investigation beyond the general terms which I have tried to describe.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have listened to this debate with great interest. I think the minister hit the nail on the head when he said that in many of these things there must be a difference between assessment of information in another country and the assessment we would give the same information. Some two or three years ago a very respectable constituent of mine-in fact, the great majority of my constituents are very respectable-was refused admission to the United States. I brought the matter to the attention of the minister's predecessor, it was investigated and later this gentleman was allowed to go to the United States. I remember what the minister told me at that time. He said that unfortunately these people on the other side often make a completely different assessment of the information than that which would be made in Canada. I think it is necessary to reconsider the procedure so that information is given having in view the fact that some

things which are dangerous from their point of view are considered to be legal in Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad the hon. gentleman raised that matter again. I may have been a little bit too general when I said we would not make any assessment of information. I am told that if we were reporting on an organization, for instance, we might give our assessment of the character of the organization so that they on their side could make an intelligent assessment of what membership in or connection with that organization meant. We do not just send them a factual report with no comment.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What about the prospect of dividing or separating the security aspect of the work of the R.C.M.P. and giving it to a genuine Canadian counter-espionage security police, if you want to separate it from this other organization which has such activities as musical rides?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In fairness I think I must say at once that the musical ride is an infinitesimally small fraction of the work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in comparison with the straight police work of that force which is nation-wide and which is by and large carried on at a high standard of efficiency.
However, to deal with the substance of the hon. gentleman's question, may I say that I have not really given much thought to it. We have in mind a revision of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. I should be glad to have a good look at it at the time when we are reviewing the act in order to see whether any good purpose would be served by separating the functions. The hon. gentleman will understand that there is a separate division which carries on the type of work we have been discussing and specialization within that division is being increased all the time. However, I should be glad to have a look at the matter and to give further consideration to whether it would serve a good purpose.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask the minister a question about a hypothetical case because I do not want to mention any names. As you know, on many occasions when delegations have been going to the United States for conferences, particularly from unions, people have been questioned as to their right to go. If a person is questioned and is not allowed a border crossing pass has he any right to go to the federal government, or however you go about these matters, to get these particular files that were kept on him presented in court and defend his case?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the answer to my hon. friends question is that this information, in

so far as it rests in our files, has not in any sense been used against the individual. But information may have been communicated to the United States authorities. They make their assessment and they form their judgment as to whether or not the individual concerned should be admitted. I do not know of any way in which the matter could be raised here in a court in Canada.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could there be a repetition of the Norman case situation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not under the new government.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


The Deputy Chairman:: It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair pursuant to standing order 15 (3) in order to allow the house to proceed to consideration of private and public bills.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the
house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence. As hon. members will note, there are on the order paper two bills under the heading of private bills. Is it the wish of the house to have both bills referred to the committee of the whole at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 181, for the relief of Ernest Frank Cross-Mr. Rea-Mr. Casselman in the chair.
On clause 1.
Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman I know there is very much more important legislation coming up, or I hope it will be coming up before the house, than this particular legislation, indeed legislation that is of great concern to many hundreds of thousands of Canadians. However, I do want to say a few words on this case because I feel they should be placed on the record.
It has long been a tradition in the administration of justice in Canadian law courts that the defence be provided, if necessary, with adequate means to conduct as able a defence as can possibly be provided. No one in Canada is summarily condemned because of the inability to afford a defence and I understand that in the civil court, if the respondent in a divorce case pleads she is unable to afford an adequate defence, the court in most provinces in Canada then orders the petitioner to supply her with sufficient funds. I believe this is also being done in a similar manner in connection with the bills which are before
Interest Act
a committee in the other place and that on a number of actual occasions the petitioner has been ordered to supply money.
In this particular case of Cross versus Cross the respondent wrote several letters, possibly not all of them to the right people and perhaps not in the right manner, indicating that she desired to appeal this matter before the miscellaneous private bills committee. She did not actually want to appeal but she indicated she wanted a re-hearing of this case and that is her right. She therefore appealed for the necessary funds. The committee, rightly or wrongly and I am not prepared to enter into an argument on this subject, felt it did not have the authority to order the petitioner to supply these funds. The committee furthermore felt it had no public funds of its own at its disposal which it might use to assist this lady to prepare her defence in the action which was being sought by her husband.
Some of us then asked the committee to appeal to this house and to ask this house to order the committee to ask the petitioner to supply the necessary moneys. The committee voted against this proposal and I regret that it did so. I very much regret that we, acting as an entirely independent body in our approach in each of these cases, or any action taken in the other place, are hereby condemning a woman as guilty of having committed adultery in the province of Quebec and have not seen fit to supply her with the wherewithal to present her case. I regret this action very much and it points out once again the callous disregard of human rights that obtains in this whole procedure which we are following.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Gordon Frank Skilling.-Mr. Rea.


Hazen Robert Argue: the second reading of Bill No. 17, to amend the Interest Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to place a limit on the interest rates that can be charged on any transaction throughout this country where federal jurisdiction would apply.	I have studied
interest rates that are being charged in many fields and in many areas of this country and I find that such rates are exorbitant and

Interest Act
excessive. I believe it is in the interests of the ordinary Canadian that this parliament should place a ceiling or a limit on the interest rates that may be charged.
Small loans companies, finance companies, many large retail firms providing instalment credit, departmental stores, loan sharks, and companies making loans for the purpose of second mortgages on real estate are in many instances charging interest rates of 15 per cent, 20 per cent or even more.
Before the banking and commerce committee in 1956 the superintendent of insurance told us that one small loans company had been charging interest rates in excess of 70 per cent per year.
I believe this problem of high interest rates is important because the amount of credit for which these excessive rates are being charged is very large and is growing steadily. I do not think hon. members should approve transactions under which the ordinary people of this country are being forced to pay loan sharks, to pay so-called respectable business firms, companies and individuals making loans these excessive rates.
Before the banking and commerce committee the year before last important amendments to the Small Loans Act were considered. They did increase the area of control over the business done by the small loans companies on loans up to $1,500 and provided a measure of control over the interest rates, though rates even within this area are still very high. On loans up to $300 the interest rate allowed by law is 2 per cent per month, which on the basis of simple interest works out to over 26 per cent per year.
Some of us in this group were responsible, I believe, initially, for presenting this problem to the House of Commons. I believe the attention that was drawn to it in parliament resulted in the former administration taking action on its own and sending a bill to the banking and commerce committee. It is my further contention that the C.C.F. group in the banking and commerce committee were responsible for the bill being reported back to parliament in such a form as to be of real service to the Canadian people, because had a minority of the Liberal members on the committee at that time, and Conservative members on the committee had their way at an earlier stage of the discussion the bill would have been killed. But the bill was reported back to the committee and on the basis of the evidence given. I think it is fair to say that those changes in the interest rates are resulting in an annual saving to the Canadian people of some $10 million a year.
The amount of consumer credit has been increasing very rapidly. I have in my hand

the Bank of Canada statistical summary for November 1957 which shows consumer credit made available by finance companies and retail credit dealers to the extent of $1,903,000,000 for the latest period reported, namely for June 1957. This shows, in the case of the instalment finance companies, an increase since September 1952, when such credits stood at $1,334,000, to September 1957, when such credits stood at $821 million, an increase in that five-year period of 144 per cent in credit provided by instalment finance companies. For the same period small loans companies increased their cash loans from $139 millions to $343 millions, an increase of 170 per cent.
Department stores increased conditional sales agreements from an amount of $54 million in 1952 to $153 million in 1957, or an increase of 183 per cent. Those are the main items of increase in that general category, and they show a tremendous increase in the credit granted in this field. It is, therefore, a very important problem and one with which parliament should deal.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? The hon. gentleman used the very interesting figure of $10 million in suggesting that there has been a saving of this magnitude to the Canadian people as a result of these amendments to the Small Loans Act. I did not follow him as to how he made that calculation.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have not the source of the calculation here today, but that calculation came from the evidence placed before the banking and commerce committee in 1956 which showed the projected effect of the interest changes which were proposed and finally made law on the business being done.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: And that can be found in the evidence of the banking and commerce committee?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not saying it can be found in the printed evidence, it can be found, in the evidence presented to the committee in the form of documents by the superintendent of insurance and others.
If one looks at the $1,900 million of credit in this field I think it would be fair to estimate that if such a bill as is now being proposed were made law the saving to the Canadian people would be multiplied many times. I think we could assume that on the basis of a saving in this field of only 10 per cent a year of the credit that is made available there would result a saving of $190 million. When one looks at the rates of interest charged by mail order houses and departmental stores, to say nothing of

loan companies and finance companies, I think this is a fair estimate to make of the amount of saving which would result from the passing of such a measure as is now suggested.


Mr. Lambert:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Has he factual evidence as to the rates of interest charged by the department stores under their smaller contracts?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, Eatons and Simpson-
Sears, to mention two well-known firms, charge maximum rates of 54 per cent a year on their small accounts and I have all the figures and all the mathematical computations in my hand. This evidence has been presented in the house on previous occasions and presented in public. It has seldom been challenged. I used it once in a television broadcast in Regina, and then right after the broadcast a voice on the telephone said: "I have been a legal adviser for Simpson-Sears for a long time and your figures are wrong." I explained on the telephone how I had arrived at my figures. The gentleman did not agree over the telephone, so I told him "If my calculations are wrong I will make a public correction during my next telecast over this station, which is one week hence." I never heard from the gentleman further.
The fact is that this is the maximum rate that is being charged by such well known companies as Simpson-Sears and the T. Eaton Company. Last year when a similar matter was being discussed in this house the hon. member for Nanaimo told of a personal experience, how a friend of his, a clerk in a large retail store in Vancouver, was called into the boss' office after he had been employed in the company for a few weeks and told that his percentage of cash sales was much too high. The question was asked as to why that was the case. The employee was informed that the company wished to promote credit sales and this was so because they could charge a very high interest rate on such sales.
If you turn on the radio at almost any moment of the day you can hear some firm advertising something for sale with no down payment. You do not have to pay any cash but I venture to say that in almost every instance the company charges a high interest rate. Oh, they may call it a service charge, finance charge, handling charge, registration fee or something else but according to the law of this country, and as it applies now to small loans companies, any charge whatsoever is considered an interest charge.
The small loans companies by law charge 2 per cent a month on loans up to $300.
Interest Act
They charge lower amounts on loans up to $1,500 but there is no limit whatsoever placed on the rate that can be charged by a small loans company or by any other company as the rate on a loan made in excess of $1,500.
A substantial part of retail sales today are being made on a credit basis and when this is done, in the vast majority of cases, there is a high interest charge attached to the sale. I think the high interest charge is a disgrace. I do not think it should be necessary to say that an interest rate of 54 per cent should not be allowed, that it is not something that should be a part of doing business in Canada. The principle of charging high rates of interest is so bad that just making the statement should be sufficient to convince hon. members that it should not be allowed in this country. If one followed through the results of sales promotions and high pressure salesmanship for goods purchased on the instalment credit basis one would find that much hardship results from families having to pay these high interest rates. One would find that this practice places a severe strain on the family budget in tens of thousands of Canadian homes. A great deal of hardship as far as ordinary Canadians are concerned stems from the practice of charging high interest rates.
I think it is now time for hon. members of this house in all political parties to look at this problem and see what can be done to prevent these outrageous interest rates being charged. The Guardian which is a publication of the united automobile workers ran a story in 1956 of a man who had purchased an automobile from a neighbour and took over a conditional sales contract, the money having been secured from the Personal Finance Company. The story relates in great detail how this man was hounded from one job to another by this company despite the fact that a substantial payment had been made on the account and despite the fact that the company had repossessed the automobile and subsequently sold it. This man's livelihood was interfered with because the company garnisheed his wages and as a result of this he was dismissed from one job after another.
The ordinary income earners of this country want something done about this festering sore in Canadian life. We have heard of a Magna Carta in the past for political rights. We need a Magna Carta today to protect the ordinary people in this country against loan sharks and racketeers whether they be so-called reputable business firms, loan firms or any other type of institution. I suggest that this kind of legislation which is now being proposed would protect the ordinary

Interest Act
people of this country. The 12 per cent interest rate provided in this bill is, I think, high. Some hon. members on previous occasions have said that the rate should be lower and I think a good argument could be made in this respect but this rate was proposed because it seemed to me that it was so reasonable that very few hon. members could oppose it.
We know that some institutions which do business in the small loans field, institutions that make very few loans in some instances- I am thinking of the credit unions in this instance-are able to make those loans at a maximum interest rate of 1 per cent per month and show a substantial saving and pay a dividend to the members who have done business with them. This rate would in no way affect the credit unions because they are already operating under this maximum. It would not affect the chartered banks whose rates are fixed by statute and even when they make loans on the basis of a discount their rates are still under 11 per cent per year. The establishment of a maximum rate would make it impossible for those companies which are now taking advantage of the ordinary consumer to continue charging exorbitant rates of interest.


Frank Claus Christian: Would the hon. member for Assiniboia permit a question. Would the hon. gentleman kindly give the date when the charges up to this maximum of 54 per cent were placed on the record?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not able to give you the date when it was done in the house but I will put it on the record right now. There is an interest charge of $2.25 made by either of these big mail order houses on an unpaid balance of $20 repayable in $5 monthly instalments. Before the hon. gentleman arrives at the rate of interest by means of rapid calculation I would suggest to him that the mathematical computation involved is rather complicated. Although he may have special training in this field I would suggest that he work out the actual rate with some care.
Sales of automobiles in this country are financed largely on a conditional sales basis. I have checked some of their contracts and the rates vary between 15 and 20 per cent or more. That is the field in which a considerable sum of money carries with it these very large interest charges. Mail order houses, small loans companies and others are charging these exorbitant rates. I am advised that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) is going to make some remarks on this bill and he will demonstrate the fantastic interest rates that are being charged on second mortgages to finance the purchase of a home. I can tell the parliamentary assistant

that in this very city of Ottawa I have had people come to me who have shown me their papers. In many cases they have had to pay an extremely large bonus in order to obtain a second mortgage which is just another way of saying they have had to pay a high interest rate.
On previous occasions I have suggested that this is a field in which the banks should be doing much more than they are now doing. The Canadian Bank of Commerce in the past has done a commendable job in the field of small loans and it is something which should be promoted by the chartered banks generally. As I read their reports I am led to the conclusion that they have not taken the interest they should in the small loans field in order to increase the amount of business they do in that way.


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question. What about the responsibility of these individuals who become involved in these excessive interest rates? What about their personal responsibility for keeping out of contracts of that type?


Alfred Claude Ellis: Let the buyer beware.


Hazen Robert Argue: I remember a former Liberal member of this house who is not here today who asked me a similar question when I was making a similar speech sometime ago. He worded it a little differently. He said he thought it was the right of any Canadian to enter into a contract to pay a high interest rate, even 60 per cent a year, if he wished to enter into such a contract. But I want to tell the hon. gentleman that very often the ordinary Canadian does not have any choice. If there is sickness in the family, if there is an emergency that has to be met, he perhaps has to have a sum of money immediately and he has no choice but to take the money where it is available.
Another thing I would suggest is that it is impossible for the ordinary person to realize the very high interest rates that are being charged. There is a friend of mine in this building who is one of the best trained persons in his field who said to me he was taken in in buying a television set by one of those companies. He did not realize the very high rates he was being charged until many months after he had purchased his set. We should not leave it to the responsibility of the ordinary person, in making a purchase or in obtaining a loan, to believe that he can avoid paying these very high interest rates.
I think the figures I have just quoted to show that in this general field of credit there

is a total of $1,900 million outstanding indicate that tens of thousands of Canadians, for one reason or another, have had to avail themselves of this type of credit, and since that is so it is a problem with which parliament should deal at this time.
Another reason I would suggest why hon. members should support this being done is the position of the small businessman, the independent merchant. I am one of those who believe that the independent merchant, the independent business proprietor, has made and is making a great contribution to the welfare of this nation. I believe that this is the real free enterprise segment of the Canadian economy and that parliament should not allow this segment of the Canadian economy to be destroyed, to wither away and pass out of existence. I suggest that the ordinary independent merchant is not able to compete with big business firms which are in the field of advancing consumer credit and charging a very high rate of interest for that credit. If they charge such fabulous rates of interest they obviously can undercut, in the retail field, the retail price that has to be charged by an independent merchant.


Mr. MacDonald (Aniigonish-Guysborough):: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would he consider it fair business practice to charge a credit customer 10 per cent for the privilege of giving him that credit? On the other hand, if I were selling a suit of clothes for cash, would it be fair business practice to offer a customer 10 per cent discount on that suit for cash? I am a clothing merchant, which is why I am asking that question.


Hazen Robert Argue: Ten per cent comes under the 12 per cent suggested in this legislation. I think I have allowed a lot of questions; I think I have been very lenient with hon. members. My time is limited. My colleague wants to speak. I do not want to be discourteous but since my time is limited I think I have already allowed an ample number of questions.
I think all members have received a document from the retail merchants' association of Canada during this session. It is a submission made to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) on October 30, 1957, and it asks the government to make provision for credit for small business firms. These small businessmen, as represented by the retail merchants' association of Canada, made this very startling statement in their submission, that credit to many merchants in this country today is available only at a rate of 16 per cent per annum through wholesale houses. That was contained in the submission of the 96698-2014
Interest Act
retail merchants' association. They asked that a number of things be done, and they made the following statement on page 4 of the submission:
The situation is serious. Within the next five to 10 years, unless action is taken now, these large corporate retailers may well control the supply and price of all retail goods to all Canadians. We have seen similar developments in the automobile industry and in the gasoline business.
On page 11 of the submission we find the following:
There is no doubt that there is an economic war in progress in the retail industry. The power of bigness, not efficiency, controls access to capital and credit.
I suggest that if the government really believes in free enterprise, if the members of the government really believe in free enterprise, if the members of the Liberal party believe in free enterprise in the best sense of the word, they should support this legislation which will reduce the charges that may be made on customer credit and therefore remove some of the disadvantages that affect small business firms at the present time.
I have other ideas as to what should be done to assist small business firms in competing with the great corporations of this country, but I suggest that this is a very urgent problem that requires attention. We should be doing something to deal with the high interest rates which are now being charged and to make sure that this part of our Canadian economy, where there is still a real measure of free enterprise, is not gobbled up by the monopolistic industries in the retail business.
Some rather disturbing figures on unemployment were presented to the house this morning by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr). I think the growing unemployment in this nation is another reason why the government should do something about the fabulous interest rates which are being charged. If we want to see the ordinary Canadian purchasing automobiles and television sets and buying houses then he should have the opportunity to make those purchases at ordinary interest rates. He should not be forced to burden himself and his family with the very high interest rates which are being charged. If the government would take action in the field of credit to reduce the very high interest rates which are being charged it would be possible for many Canadians to buy increased quantities of goods, which in itself would help solve our unemployment problem.
I appeal to the government not to brush this suggestion aside too quickly but to consider what is a very important problem for many Canadians and to give this bill its earnest consideration. If the government does not see fit at this time to support the principle

Interest Act
of the measure, I suggest that the whole question be referred once again to the standing committee on banking and commerce, that we be allowed to call before that committee representatives of the firms that are charging these high interest rates, that we have before the committee once again the superintendent of insurance and that there be a fair hearing on this whole business of extortionate interest rates. If that is done, I believe that public opinion will so impress itself on members of the house that legislation will be forthcoming.


Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make some comments on the bill before us this afternoon, and in rising to do so may I say that I am not quite sure what the status of this speech may be. Some hon. members have made their maiden speeches in the house. I have risen on three or four occasions on sort of false starts so I cannot claim that this is a maiden speech. But there are one or two observations I should like to make before I proceed to discuss the bill now before us. I have been somewhat amazed at the continual verbosity originating in one corner of the house. The more we attempt to dam it the more the superfluous overflow continues. In my opinion much of this arises from the attempt of the socialist group in the house to tamper with our affairs in the name of a controlled economy. I say not in an unkindly way that, having listened to the debates since I came into the house I am becoming more and more convinced that instead of just private members' days we should have a special day for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre known as Knowles day.


Hazen Robert Argue: Every day is that day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let's not argue with that.


Murray Douglas Morton: I say that not entirely by way of compliment to the hon. gentleman but from the point of view of the self-preservation of some of the private members of the house, especially the newer members, who would have liked to have more opportunity to contribute to the debates.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Why don't you?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Put
some bills on the order paper yourself.


Alfred Claude Ellis: There is nothing to stop you.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do not make so many false starts.


Murray Douglas Morton: Let us pass the legislation that is before the house. The more we speak the longer it will be delayed.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Think how long it would take if all 265 members spoke on everything.


Murray Douglas Morton: I would not like to figure out how long it would take us to finish. I do appreciate the real problem that has been brought before the house this afternoon by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). I know there is a great tendency in that part of the house to encourage the idea of letting the government do things rather than encouraging our people to stand on their own feet. But there come times when the people need protection and I agree with the hon. member for Assiniboia that this is one of those occasions. Perhaps I might relate some of the circumstances that are developing in this regard and that are typical of metropolitan Toronto and perhaps all other areas. Young couples, because of the high rents they have to pay, seek to buy homes with low down payments. If they buy new homes they are given a pretty fair opportunity under the National Housing Act to buy homes within their means. If they are forced to buy older homes they make a small down payment and have a first mortgage of reasonable size and a very large second mortgage. In some cases there is even a third mortgage.
Then they have to furnish that home and in order to do so they have to buy their furniture on credit. If they have moved to the suburbs some distance from their work they have to buy a motor car also on credit. By the time they are through they have extended themselves beyond their means. Some of them have perhaps bought their furniture from various stores and reaching a point where they cannot finance on that basis they find they must refinance, go to a loan company in order to do so and have to pay another bonus and a larger interest rate.
That problem is coming more and more to a head. There is also an increasing and dangerous problem in connection with second and third mortgages coming due for payment. These young couples are faced with the problem of paying more by way of a bonus to have the mortgages renewed than they have paid off the principal in the past three, four or five years. In my opinion there is definitely a real problem in that regard that must be faced by the government.
We know that the problem of interest rates has been with us from the days of the bible. There are many quotations in the bible with respect to usury. We know that the matter has been discussed by the governments of this country before confederation and since. We know that it has been a difficult problem to deal with. In some aspects there has been a narrowing down of the problem through the passing of various acts incorporating small loan and finance companies and controlling the rate of interest

which they may charge. We have the Small Loans Act, the Interest Act and the Pawnbrokers' Act, but the problem facing us today has to do with loans made under contracts which are not covered by the present legislation.
With regard to the rate of interest, I would not like to say that the amount set by the hon. member in the bill is the rate that should be accepted. It may be too high or too low. I do not know. Before we arbitrarily set a rate I believe we should study the effect on the availability of money. It is all very well for us to state what the rate of interest should be but that does not force people to make money available. If the interest rate is not a sufficient enticement for people to make such loans, then we are faced with another problem.
How can these young couples finance themselves then in obtaining furniture, automobiles and so on? What effect is it going to have upon the economy, upon those who manufacture furniture, electrical equipment and motor cars. These are things that have to be taken into consideration. Once we start to tamper with the economy we have to follow through to the end of the implications.
In the bill the hon. member has set a figure of 12 per cent. Maybe the hon. member has the facts and figures to back up that amount and to show that the companies lending money would be interested in continuing to lend at that rate unless, of course, he is suggesting that the government should go into the lending business. I have one or two figures that I think it would be interesting to look at. The hon. member for Assiniboia has referred to certain figures. In the annual commercial review of the Montreal Gazette, issued under date of January 11, 1958, there is an article containing the information that as of June 30, 1956 there was $2,315 million outstanding with respect to loans, which was a 19.6 per cent increase over the previous year and that by the following September there had been an increase of 17.3 per cent over the previous year. Then it goes on to show that in June 1957 the amount was $2,472 million which was a drop in the rate of increase in the amount of money borrowed.
It would appear from the table that the amount that is being borrowed is decreasing. That may be as a result of the present pause in the economy. I think that as of the end of this year, in the Financial Post of January 11, at page 25 it was estimated that the consumers will owe about $2.5 billion which is roughly the same amount as at the end of
Interest Act
1956. There is there shown almost the same amount being owed at this time of year as there was last year, instead of the usual increase there has been in the borrowing of our people. It may be that they are beginning to find that they cannot afford these things. I think there is something to be said perhaps for the suggestion that maybe as a nation or a people we are buying beyond our means. Perhaps we are trying to obtain all the luxuries-or what were luxuries to our forefathers-all at once rather than waiting until we can afford them. Perhaps that is one of the difficulties that has created a demand which is perhaps greater than the supply. When you have a demand which is greater than the supply, naturally those who have the money are going to try to get the best bargain they can get.
I agree that it is a serious problem to protect some of these people from the difficulties they may get into. Many a young couple have been quite startled to find that they have purchased a car, television set, refrigerator or what not and that the payments are too high, and they suggest that the company concerned take back the article they have purchased. It may be six months later or perhaps as long as a year. Then they find that they are stuck because the depreciation on that article has been greater than the amount which they have paid on the loan. Then when the company take it back, either by force or voluntarily, and resell it the young couple are then presented with a bill for the difference between what they have paid and the amount obtained from the sale of the article plus the costs involved in the sale, if it has been a forced sale. Thus they sometimes find themselves with a quite sizeable debt and without the use of the article concerned.
Perhaps that may be the fault of the people for going into the contract. They should have had their eyes open. But unfortunately many of our people do not look at the cost when they go into these contracts. Perhaps in our system of education we have not alerted them sufficiently to the trap into which they might fall by trying to get things just because they like them and without considering the cost they have to pay for them.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would answer a question?


Mr.   Morion@: I will try to do so.


Alfred Claude Ellis: It is just prior to six o'clock.. I wonder if he would inform the house whether he is going to vote for this bill?


Mr.   Morion@: If this bill comes to a vote, Mr. Speaker, I would vote for it though not as to the amount. I think perhaps it should

Interest Act
be referred to the committee, as suggested by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). I still would like to see experts called to give their view about the amount of 12 per cent. However, I am in favour of the principle of the bill as set out. Otherwise I would not have spoken in the way in which I have spoken. I speak as I do from the experience I have obtained as a solicitor in Toronto in dealing with these young couples who have had this problem. As such we have had to try to assist them out of many of their difficulties. I have already mentioned our problem to our Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) in respect of housing. I refer to the problem that may arise in respect of having to finance second mortgages with the terrific bonuses which they have to pay.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, this seemingly simple bill is one of rather far-reaching consequence. As well, it is a hardy perennial because on several occassions in other parliaments, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) has presented this bill with his usual force and persuasiveness. The attempts to control usury, as has been indicated by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Morton), by legislative action are now almost as old as legislation itself. It seems to me that we have reached a situation today where our society is built almost completely on credit. The extension of credit is not merely a multi-million dollar business but, according to the statistics which were given to the house by the hon. member for Assiniboia, it is virtually a multibillion dollar business in our present day economy. Each year seems to see a widening and a broadening of the practice of instalment buying until today it is virtually the rule rather than the exception. Today it would appear that practically all Canadians have pledged their future earnings for past or present enjoyment of consumer goods, and indeed even for holiday trips. The finance company or the acceptance company has become an essential part of our whole social and economic system. I confess that I am one of those who is sometimes troubled by this trend of our society. The old-fashioned practice of thrift seems to be just that, namely an old-fashioned and outmoded virtue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock the house will revert to the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
Headquarters administration, national police services and training establishments-
396. Administration, operation and maintenance, $7,329,030.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Item agreed to.
399. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $3,351,070.
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I have to ask for a moment here because I had intended to move a reduction in this item. Perhaps if it is agreeable to the committee I might move it myself because, after all, I am moving a reduction in the estimates prepared by the previous government. I move:
That vote No. 399, land and air services, construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, be reduced by $250,000.


Mr. Byrne:: I second the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
do not need to second a motion in committee.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I could build my armouries with that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. minister could tell us if this represents waste and extravagance discovered by the Minister of Finance?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It represents an over-estimation which for the reason I explained earlier, often happens and which we have frequently criticized in the past.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
405. Government's contribution to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension account, $986,710.
George Hugh Castleden: I would like to ask a question under this item. I see that it is a statutory item with regard to pensions but while we are dealing with the pensions paid to the R.C.M.P., may I say a number of these men are endeavouring to live on a very low pension. Would the minister indicate if he could raise the pension of mounted police who were retired 25 years ago or what an ordinary constable or sergeant would receive as a pension if he retired say in the year 1935? Has there been any increase in that pension and is it possible to increase it by an item here, or I suppose it would require an amendment to the act?


Mr. Broome:: I would also like to ask a
question with regard to this item. The history of the wage paid to the R.C.M.P. is that it has stayed in a static position for a good many years, to the point that a staff corporal retiring in say 1947 would have had about $2,000, or a little over, in pay and allowances while in 1957 the same staff corporal would have had a total overall pay of $4,800.
Since the pension is computed on the annual wages, the man retiring in 1957 would retire with more than double the pension of the man retiring in 1947. The whole point is that the previous government lagged behind the rising cost of living in adjusting the salaries to the point where they had to increase salaries something like 150 per cent in 10 years. Now that has penalized the man who retired prior to the extremely large increases in annual salaries and it is my belief that something should be done to bring up the pension of the man who retired when salaries were at an extremely low level.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I want to say a word on this too, because when I had my resolution before the house everybody supported it. It is a well known fact that no matter what government it is, if it does not increase these pensions to retired civil servants it is not living up to the promises that it would provide an equal amount to what they had before. The mounted police have never been paid big salaries and we do not want our retired civil servants, who are part of the great family of the government of Canada, living in poverty. I am sure the Minister of Justice will rise to the occasion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think there are one or two questions that should be answered at this point.
The present scale of pensions is governed by part V of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act which applies to members of the force engaged since March 1, 1949 and to those members who were engaged prior to that date and who elected to become contributors. The pension is based on one-fiftieth of the average pay and allowances received during the last six years for each year of service. One-half of the pension is payable to the widow. The maximum service is 35 years.
There are still in force a number of pensions under part III of the act, which I do not think I need to detail at this time. Under this part of the act there are some anomalies still outstanding which require adjustment. They apply particularly to the position of those who served in the armed forces and have been re-engaged in the R.C.M.P.
I may say we have the act under consideration at the moment, and it is hoped to take
Supply-Justice
care of most of these questions which have been raised in this case and which are outstanding in the proposed revision.


George Hugh Castleden: That does not give me very much in the way of information on the amount that say a constable who retired in 1935 would receive. The pay and allowances at that time were very low. The maximum which a retired mounted policeman could receive would be 70 per cent of what he was receiving over the last six years of service. The man with 25 years service would only be receiving one-half of that amount. I wonder if the minister could provide me with some actual figures as to what such pay and allowances would be.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would have to give the current pay and allowances to establish that. If a man served for 35 years, as my hon. friend says, he would then get 70 per cent.


George Hugh Castleden: That is right and 25 years would be half.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He would get one-half of his pay on retirement.


George Hugh Castleden: Yes; could you tell me what the pay was in 1935, say for a constable or sergeant?


Edmund Davie Fulton: You see it is based on the average pay and allowances received during the last six years of service.


George Hugh Castleden: Yes, that is right, but a man who retired in 1935 would be getting, after 25 years service, exactly half of what his average pay was from 1929 to 1935.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If he retired in 1935 he would, under the present pension provisions, come under the old part III.


George Hugh Castleden: That is correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In which I have said there are some anomalies which require adjustment. I could give some examples and I think my hon. friend will agree that I leave out the names.


George Hugh Castleden: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A special constable who had 20 years of service and who retired on December 1, 1937, receives a pension of $432 a year. A corporal with 20 years of service who retired on May 17, 1929 receives a pension of $511.50 a year; a staff sergeant with 20 years of service who retired on August 1, 1928 receives a pension of $620.50 a year; an inspector with 30 years of service who retired on January 1, 1935 receives $1,836 a year. Those are all samples of the rates that are applicable under part III of the act.

Supply-Justice


George Hugh Castleden: If an increase were to be granted in the pensions paid to civil servants would these men come under it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman. It would require a change in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to take care of these pension cases.


George Hugh Castleden: Would this in any way
affect their treatment under the Old Age Security Act?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, the pensions of the force are not in any way related to payments received under the Old Age Security Act nor, at the present time, when payments are made to them under that act as of right, are their old age pensions reduced by the amount of such police pension payments.


George Hugh Castleden: I do not suppose there are too many of these cases but surely pensions of $432, $511 or even $620 a year are in the light of the present cost of living much below what should be available to men who served as long as these men served in the mounted police in those early days.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They seem very inadequate.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise the question of men who served in the R.C.M.P. during the first world war. I believe that in 1942 the act was changed so that members of the R.C.M.P. came under veterans allowance, but that act did not go back to cover the men who served in the first world war. These men are in an invidious position as compared with the veterans in the force who served in the R.C.M.P. during the second world war.
The other point I make, which I mentioned previously, is that the extremely large increases which were given to members of the R.C.M.P. because their wages had lagged behind, and which took place from 1947 onward, made the position of the men who retired earlier than 1947 equivalent to retiring on about half the pension upon which they would have retired had they served another five or six years. There is a definite injustice being done to the men who retired prior to 1947 and I think also that an injustice is being done to those veterans of the R.C.M.P. who were injured during the course of their duty in the first world war.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think, Mr. Chairman, that what the hon. member has in mind are cases of what I might call an anomalous character under part 3 which do require adjustment. We hope to deal with the great majority of these cases when we are able to get on with the revision of the act.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, does that mean that the pensions of these former members of the R.C.M.P. will be increased and brought up to what they should be?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the objective.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you.


Douglas Mason Fisher: When the chairman broke off our discussions at five o'clock the minister made a brief, snappy political comment which I did not quite get, in connection with the Norman case and I wonder if he would repeat it so that it should be on the record.
The second point is that I directed a question to him regarding section-


Henri Courtemanche: That item has been passed. We cannot discuss it further.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is a supplementary item on administration still to be discussed, and my hon. friend can ask his question then.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Headquarters administration, national police services and training establishments-
739. Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $66,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the item on administration in the supplementaries.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, it is unnecessary for me to repeat the first question. The second one is: has there been any prosecution under section 37, subsection 2 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act?


Edmund Davie Fulton: To the best recollection of myself and the officials sitting in front of me, the answer to the second question is no. The answer to the first question is, I believe, on the record and will stand there to speak for itself.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to raise a question regarding mounted police who are injured in the performance of their duties. I am thinking of a man who was severely frostbitten in the Northwest Territories a few years ago. Would the minister inform me what is the standard upon which the compensation to such persons is based.


Edmund Davie Fulton: At the present time disability pensions and the continuance of such pensions to survivor, widows and so on is governed by the provisions of the Pensions Act applicable to veterans.


Frank Claus Christian: I should like to raise a question in regard to the matter of criminal investigation in serious cases, particularly capital cases. I know that in a number of small communities in British Columbia there are often stationed in R.C.M.P. offices one or more R.C.M.P. officers. In many cases these

men are young and, of course, it stands to reason they are not as experienced as the more senior officers. I was just wondering if, when a situation arises in which an officer believes there are reasonable grounds for thinking that a capital offence has been committed, the minister or the Department of Justice would not consider flying in men to visit these centres, men trained in scientific and legal matters and experienced in this type of investigation, because I feel this would indeed be doing a great service and it would at the same time be assisting the younger officers in these smaller communities. I should like to hear the views of the Minister of Justice and the commissioner on this subject, to see whether the practice might not be improved.


James Ross Fulton: At the present time there are means available for flying in special investigators in serious cases, such as capital cases, where it is considered necessary or desirable to do so. I suggest, therefore, that if in any such case a special investigator was not flown in it is because the commanding officer did not consider it necessary. However, the commanding officer may call for such assistance if he considers it desirable.


Frank Claus Christian: I just want to say that I know of a number of cases from my own experience-one involving a capital case and another a drug case-where it would have been of advantage to have followed such a course. I assume that if the officer concerned were to telephone to the main R.C.M.P. headquarters permission for assistance to be flown out would be given.


James Ross Fulton: In the province from which my hon. friend and I come a request would presumably go to headquarters in Victoria, and unless there were such demands on the available resources that they could not all be met it would be a matter for the judgment of the officer in command of the division whether a special investigator should be flown in or not. There could be errors of judgment, but the facilities are there except in very exceptional circumstances where the resources might be overstrained.


Frank Claus Christian: May I ask the minister whether consideration could not, in any event, be given the question of whether an improvement might be made?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Naturally we are always prepared to consider anything which will improve the administration of the work of the force. Resources are not unlimited but we would be glad to know if at any time the lack of dealing with a particular case was
Supply-Justice
due to the lack of facilities or just what were the circumstances. Therefore it would be helpful if the hon. member would let us know privately what two cases he has in mind and we would be glad to look into them.


Erhart Regier: I wonder if the minister could inform the committee whether any of the municipalities in British Columbia have terminated their agreements with the R.C.M.P. since the recent rather severe increases in the price to municipal governments of the services of the force? Have there been any grievances which have been entered by the municipal governments?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am informed that there was one municipality in British Columbia which employed the services of one man which has terminated the contract. I recall at least one if not more municipalities in British Columbia that have requested the assignment of additional personnel.


Erhart Regier: I wonder if the minister could explain for the benefit of British Columbia members why when at the time this program was first initiated, I believe some five or six years ago, the agreements that were offered the municipalities were so very one-sided, so much so that most municipalities felt completely unable to resist the offer that was being made. They were offered the services of the force at a ridiculously low rate. However once the municipalities had abolished their own municipal police forces, then almost every year amazing increases were imposed upon the municipalities.
We all know that the increases, or at least a measure of them, were completely warranted by rising wages and the rising of other expenses but the ratio of the increases was quite beyond any possible increase in either the wages of the men or the expense of having the men employed. It appears to some at least almost as if there was a deliberate policy followed of luring the municipalities into the abolition of their own forces at the time and that now the department is beginning to tax the municipalities for a fairer and more equitable share of the cost I wonder if the minister would like to offer some comment about that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I would say here on the basis of my own recollection of the situation in British Columbia that the history of the matter is actually that the municipalities which gave up their municipal police forces did so at a time when the R.C.M.P. was not responsible for the policing of the province but when we had our own British Columbia police force and the arrangements then would be made between the municipality and the British Columbia police force.

Supply-Justice
Whatever arrangements were in effect between the municipalities and the British Columbia police force were taken over at the time when at the instigation and desire of the British Columbia provincial government the R.C.M.P. were requested to take over the policing of the province and to assume those contracts which the British Columbia provincial police then had with the municipalities.
It would not be correct to say that the dominion government or the R.C.M.P. lured the municipalities into giving up their police forces and then made any attempt to stick them for the proportionate share of policing the municipalities. I do not know of any case, actually, in which a municipality gave up its municipal police force subsequent to the time when the contract or agreement was made between the province and the dominion government for the R.C.M.P. to take over the policing in British Columbia.


Erhart Regier: Perhaps I am wrong, Mr. Chairman, but I believe that in the riding I represent that has actually been the case. The municipal force and not the provincial force was abolished in favour of the services of the R.C.M.P. Lest there be any misunderstanding I want to tell the minister that the municipalities in my area are very happy with the arrangement and the population as a whole, I think, is extremely well pleased that the fears some of us expressed at the time of the changeover have not thus far at least been realized and we find that the R.C.M.P. are rendering at least as good service as our local police force used to render. However a number of us have been alarmed a little bit at the rate of increase in the bills that those responsible for the financing of the municipalities have had to meet since then.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I must at once admit that I may have been in error in that I was basing my statement upon my knowledge of the situation. Coming from the interior of British Columbia I admit at once that the hon. gentleman knows the situation in his own municipality of Burnaby-Coquitlam. The only other thing I think I should say is that the requests being made for extra payments by the municipality reflect the general increase in salaries and wages and therefore in the scale of pay and the administrative costs of the R.C.M.P.


Donald Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the answer that the minister gave to my colleague, the hon. member for Port Arthur, at five o'clock with regard to this tragic incident known as the Norman case in which he indicated that under the present government such a series of events could not 
take place. Does that indicate that there has been a change since the minister took office in the control of the material that the R.C.M.P. may collect with regard to any Canadian citizen? Have there been some changes in the security operations of the R.C.M.P. since the minister took office so that this type of thing cannot happen again?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There have been no fundamental changes of a revolutionary character. How will I put it? I could say that one learns by experience and by events and I think it is correct to say that as a result of what we have learned from the Norman case-I do not say what the police have learned but what we have learned-it is my firm belief that such a series of incidents would not take place again.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine services-
742. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $408,060.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago the Minister of Justice with obvious zest moved a reduction of $250,000 in an item in the estimates that had been submitted by the Liberals. The item had to do with the construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment under the land and air services of the R.C.M.P. Now the same minister is asking the committee to vote a supplementary estimate introduced by the Conservatives of $408,060 for the construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, in this case under marine services. So, Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether this is a net saving or is it a net increase simply transferred from one branch to another?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the explanation is that the reduction was moved in an item which appeared under the land and air services, for the construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment. The supplementary now before us, item No. 742, is under the marine services.


Stanley Howard Knowles: noted that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I understand it, it is not possible to transfer allotments as between these two votes and therefore the only way it could be done was by moving a reduction in the one and asking for more money in the other case. The construction program under marine services for the construction of boats, et cetera, went ahead rather faster than had at first been anticipated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: simply mentioned the fact that what the government is saving on the one hand it is more than spending on the other.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friend wants to look at it in that way. If my hon. friend thinks we should not spend this money then, of course, the opportunity is open to him to act accordingly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: have no objection. I am just pointing out the attitude of the minister; the zest he has now is different from what he had before.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I have equal zest in recommending this because I think we can fully justify it as I could justify the reduction in the other item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
181. Bankruptcy Act administration, $48,985.
Henri Courtemanche: This item was allowed to stand earlier. Shall the item now carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answer to the question asked by the hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary I think I should now furnish to the committee. In 1956, there were 3,849 bankruptcies; to the end of November, 1957 there were 3,010 bankruptcies.


Frederick George Hahn: Is the minister in a position to give me the reasons behind those bankruptcies?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am informed that in this department we do not keep statistics of the nature which the hon. gentleman requests. Our interest in the matter is to ensure that the estates which are bankrupt are properly administered in accordance with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, but we do not keep statistics with regard to the causes of bankruptcy, the type of business in the bankruptcy courts, and so on. If those sorts of statistics are maintained I believe they would be obtainable through the bureau of statistics.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Henri Courtemanche: That completes the estimates of the Department of Justice.
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES General services-
139. Departmental administration, $319,700.


Henri Courtemanche: We shall now deal with the estimates of the Department of Fisheries, beginning with item 139 on page 29, with the details on page 215.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, over the years it has been customary for the Minister of Fisheries to make a brief review of the state of the fishing
Supply-Fisheries
industry on the first item of his estimates.
I think it is a useful practice, and it is my intention to follow it in a brief way. I realize, of course, that in one sense it is a dangerous practice because if all hon. members of the committee avail themselves of the opportunity which I am taking at the present time perhaps it would have the effect of defeating my purpose in making these brief remarks because my purpose in making them is that I may thereby be of some assistance to the committee in examining carefully the estimates of my department.
Since becoming minister it has been my attempt to become as familiar as possible with this important Canadian industry. In an endeavour to familiarize myself with the establishments of the department and of the industry itself throughout the country a few months ago I visited the east and the west coasts. At a later time I hope to be able to visit the industry of the inland waters of this country, which is a very important one, and also the industry in the province of Quebec. I hope to be able especially to visit the Gaspe area and the Magdalen islands because in the Magdalen islands, and they are neighbours of mine, fishing is of prime importance. It will, therefore, be a pleasure for me to visit that area when the opportunity presents itself.
The fishing industry, of course, is not one of Canada's largest or, by some measures, most important industries-that is, if you wish to measure it in the value of the products produced-but it is an industry that is of prime importance. It has a great history and I believe it has a great future. The fishing industry was the first industry in this country after the explorers of Europe found that two continents stood in their way when they tried to reach the Far East by sailing west. On finding that fish were plentiful, fishing became the first industry in which Europeans engaged in this country, followed of course shortly afterwards by the fur trade. It is an industry like agriculture; that is, more of a human industry with more problems than many of our highly mechanized industries. In dealing with the problems of the fisheries we are dealing with the livelihood of a large number of men and women who work closely with nature, and whose livelihood is subject to a great variety of uncertainties. Those uncertainties extend all the way from the catching of the fish to the marketing of the final product.
In the speech from the throne mention was made of the government's intention to strive to secure additional markets for the products of our fisheries. Responsibility for foreign markets rests with my colleague, the

Supply-Fisheries
Minister of Trade and Commerce; but in the Department of Fisheries we propose to do everything possible to see to it that the products of the fisheries are made available in the best possible quality, not only to consumers in Canada but also to consumers in various markets of the world. The throne speech went on to say:
[DOT]-to promote the development of international rules to safeguard the living resources of the sea.
Our greatest fishery resources such as salmon, halibut, cod, haddock and other ground fish, and the fishes of the great lakes are, to a large extent, international in character. Other nations besides Canada have access to those fisheries. The same stock of fish which might be caught by our fishermen close to our coast can also be caught by fishermen of other lands further out to sea. In this case successful conservation efforts can only be undertaken by joint international agreements of the nations to whom those fisheries are of common concern.
Up to the present time we have been able to cope with the problem presented by this international character of our fisheries through a series of treaties with the nations interested in their exploitation: for example, the northwest Atlantic fisheries convention between Canada and I think about 11 other countries; the north Pacific fisheries convention between Canada and the United States and Japan; and the bilateral convention between Canada and the United States covering the salmon and halibut fisheries of the Pacific coast and the fisheries of the great lakes. As a result of those conventions Canada, as well as other participating nations, has learned much about the problems of fisheries management in the high seas.
It is now possible to develop international conservation rules of general application which will enable states having coastal fisheries to undertake any necessary measures, not only to safeguard the resources of the sea against over-exploitation but also to manage the resources so that the fullest possible utilization of them can be made on a continuing basis.
I might say at this point that since I became minister of the department acts passed by the last parliament relating to two rather important international agreements have been proclaimed. One brought pink salmon under the salmon commission and the other had to do with fur seals. The first meeting of the international fur seal commission is to be held in Washington next week.
We have, with other maritime states, a great responsibility to maintain and develop

these resources of the sea for the benefit of Canada and, indeed, of mankind. As Minister of Fisheries it will be one of my foremost tasks to see that this responsibility is fully met and that efforts in the field of conservation of our fisheries are intensified.
I said that I believe the fishing industry has a great future. I believe this because of the enthusiasm I have encountered not only within the fishing industry itself but also within the department and among the scientists of the fisheries research board of Canada. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the men in the department and the scientists who are mostly attached to the fisheries research board. They have gained for this country a very enviable reputation and are classed among the most capable in the world. I am honoured and proud to be associated with them.
I have been most impressed by the scientific approach that is being taken toward the maintenance and conservation of our fishery resources. Also in the technological field, in the catching, processing, handling and marketing of fishery products, our scientists and technical personnel as well as forward-looking companies in the industry are making this industry as modern as any in the country. I am aware that modern techniques have not yet reached all branches of our fisheries but progress has been very substantial.
As I indicated earlier, fishing is an uncertain occupation. Sometimes the fish appear in great abundance and sometimes they are scarce or do not appear at all. Last year was no exception. Early last summer unusually late ice conditions along the entire Atlantic seaboard appeared likely to curtail the fishing operations seriously. This was the case, but happily as the year advanced the fish became more plentiful and catches improved considerably. On the Pacific coast also the figures of early catches were disappointing but again the later runs did much to restore production and earnings to a normal level.
The over all market value of the fisheries will again approach $200 million. Close to half of this amount goes directly to the fishermen while the balance goes for processing, packaging, handling and merchandising. The fishing industry is highly dependent on foreign markets but the domestic market is becoming of more and more significance. In September the queen's printer published a report prepared for the Gordon commission by the department and the fisheries research board on the commercial fisheries

of Canada. This very complete and comprehensive document is the first of its kind ever published and I commend it to all members of the house.
I should like to say a few words in connection with the long-range prospects of the fishery as an industry. As the population of the world increases and especially as the population of Northern America increases the importance of fish as a food will increase at least proportionately and even at a greater rate because as the population increases in any country sources of protein food especially become more restricted. We can learn from the example of other nations that have a very high density of population such as Japan where they have turned to a much greater extent than we have to the sea as a source of nutritious food with a high protein content and many other beneficial constituents as well, such as vitamins, trace elements and so forth that are very vital to a balanced diet. As the use of fish goes up the demand for it will of course increase and with that there will be a tendency toward more competition for the fish and therefore a rise in prices. I should like to quote very briefly from page 85 of the publication to which I referred a moment ago, "The Commercial Fisheries of Canada", as follows:
The pressure from two expanding populations-
The reference is to the populations of Canada and the United States.
-upon a resource base which has some obvious limits will have an effect not only on prices generally but also no doubt on the present market orientation of the Canadian trade. In large part, the effect may depend upon the extent to which the domestic market is able to compete with the United States market for Canadian supplies.
I do not intend to make any further general remarks at the present time except that perhaps it would be well for me to offer one further explanation. As is obvious to all members of the committee, the estimates are exactly those which were presented by the previous government. It is not my intention to have any reductions moved but that is not to say that savings are not being made. Nevertheless, the way we have carried on during the last year by passing interim supply from month to month has put the program of the department out of step especially in such items as construction where most of the money, if it had been voted at the beginning of the fiscal year, would have been spent in a very short period. Because of the fact that these moneys had not already been voted but in most cases were voted one-twelfth at a time these programs were thrown out of step in some cases. As a result, it is difficult-
Supply-Fisheries


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question just for clarification?


John Angus MacLean: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does that mean that any part of the building program was actually held up for lack of funds at any time?


John Angus MacLean: I would say there have been cases where that is true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister would not mind giving them later.


John Angus MacLean: Yes, I will be glad to do that. As the result of that it is difficult to determine what might be actual savings and what might be actual deferred expenditures which might be required to be revoted in next year's estimates or asked for in supplementaries at a later date. There were also cases in the department where a program which was planned was held up by conditions over which the department had no control. There are a couple of cases where weather prevented certain projects from going forward. As a result of these things I think it is much more logical to wait for a full fiscal year so that we can estimate more accurately what savings can be made.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, first I should like to congratulate the minister on the statement he has made tonight. During his remarks he mentioned that he had visited the east coast last summer. 1 regret that I did not see him at that time because I believe it would have been worth while if he could have met personally some of the fishermen in that area and obtained their views and ideas on remedies or improvements which might have been helpful to the industry.
In his closing remarks the minister touched on the fact that he felt there would be savings in the department. When the Progressive Conservatives sat on this side of the house we heard the expression "Waste and extravagance" quite often. I would wish him before these estimates are concluded to point out to us any waste and extravagance that he has found in his department during the months that he has been minister.
During the throne speech debate I expressed my opinion with regard to this government's action in increasing the tariff rates on several commodities coming in from the United States and the attitude they had taken in connection with trade with other countries. For that reason I shall not repeat all that I said at that time. But I wish to remind the Minister of Fisheries that we expect him to be the watchdog in the cabinet in so far as this manoeuvring in trade is concerned. We also expect the Minister of National Revenue from Nova Scotia, the Minister of Veterans

Supply-Fisheries
Affairs from New Brunswick and the Minister without Portfolio from Newfoundland to do exactly that same thing. We feel that it is a job that must be done if this industry in the maritime provinces is to prosper and to carry on as it has in the past.
I know that the minister is well aware of the concerted effort on the part of the fishermen in the New England states to have tariff restrictions placed on the importation of Canadian fish. The tariff board of the United States has on two occasions in recent years endorsed the recommendation of the fishermen of the New England states, and the only friend that the Canadian fishermen had in the final analysis was President Eisenhower who vetoed this recommendation. I believe that right at this present time consideration is being given in congress to some sort of quota or some sort of restriction on the importation of Canadian lobsters. Perhaps many in the committee would not realize that 90 per cent of the lobsters that are caught in the maritime provinces go to the United States. It is the one market that we have for 90 per cent of what we catch, and it is one of the greatest branches of the fishing industry in the maritime provinces. Ninety per cent of that catch goes into the United States. One would realize immediately that any interference with that market would be most harmful to the fishing industry.
We have made every effort to get markets in other parts of the world. In fact, during the last three weeks Conleys Lobsters, a lobster company in the little town from which I come, has made two shipments of lobster to Belgium by air. Nearly 30,000 pounds of lobster have been sent to Belgium in two shipments. A new process has been developed whereby ice is not used. They use just shavings and cardboard cartons.
The vice president of that company was in Ottawa this week and he told me that the last shipment that went out about a week ago had arrived. He was talking with them in Belgium while in Ottawa and they had 2 per cent weaks which is a wonderful record. That is the effort that is being made to try to extend the industry. Everything is being done by industry that can be done. It might also be of interest to the committee to know that the plane that takes these Lobsters from Saint John, New Brunswick, which is where they take off for Belgium, returned to Canada with monkeys from which Salk vaccine is manufactured in Canada. It is quite a contrast.
But that means so much to those in the maritime provinces. The lobster industry is one of the greatest industries we have. The lobster is one commodity for which there has

always been a demand. It has never been a drug on the market. It has never been a fish that cannot be sold. It is one that we have always been able to find markets for. But I must say again that 90 per cent of that market is in the United States. For that reason we must be extremely careful that it is not interfered with in any way. The diversion of $625 million of Canadian purchases from the United States to Great Britain will not, in my opinion, be of any help to the maritime provinces. I believe that every maritime member here, if he would be sincere would say the same thing. In fact, I am doubtful whether it would be helpful to any part of Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nonsense. Why do you not get on the subject before the committee.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The minute I start to speak in this house, I am always interrupted. Here is the Financial Times that I received in my office today. I wish the Minister of Trade and Commerce would read these editorials. There is one that says, "Oh, how we hate the Americans", and I really believe that he is one of them. There is another one appearing in the Ottawa Citizen that I could quote. They are appearing in the press every day. I wonder whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce ever stopped to realize that if the President of the United States had said this, namely that we will divert $625 million of purchases from Canada to Mexico what would have been said in this House of Commons. Surely he realizes that the American people cannot take a thing like that without retaliation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We buy more from them than they buy from us and you know it.


Mr.   Siuari@Charloiie: I do not doubt that. But I am telling the hon. member I am quite sure that the section from which he comes is not in sympathy with the action he has taken in this regard or the action taken by the Prime Minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are wrong.


An hon. Member:: June 10 showed that.


Mr.   Siuari@Charloiie: There will be
another June 10. And I can tell my hon. friend right now that he is not half as anxious for that June 10 now as he was two months ago.


An hon. Member:: We sure are.


Mr.   Siuari@Charloiie: When 700,000 people are unemployed in this country as was indicated today you will not wish for an election.


An hon. Member:: You will not be back.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I have heard that for five elections but I hope to be back. I can assure my hon. friend that I will do everything possible to get back. There is no question about that. To show the unreasonable things that are being said in the Tory press today, I am going to read a short portion from an editorial that appeared in the Globe and Mail on January 6, just a day or two ago. It says this:
There is much we can do to retaliate when the United States kicks us around in this manner.
We can, merely to take one instance, impose 15 per cent export tax on the newsprint we ship to that country-or on the nickel, or the uranium, or the iron ore. Such stern measures are not yet in order, are not yet even to be considered. But if every United States industry that runs into a little bit of recession is to lobby successfully in Washington for restriction upon our goods, we will have to be stern; and we could do worse than prepare our minds for that.
I believe this to be one of the most irresponsible childish statements I have ever read in any periodical in Canada coming at a time when 700,000 are unemployed, and a great portion of them in the pulp and paper industry. The Toronto Globe and Mail comes out with a statement like this and then we expect to maintain friendly relations with our friends over the border. I have lived on the United States border for a lifetime. There are not any people in the world that I would rather have living to the south of us than the Yankees. We never had any better friends than those people to the south of us. One of the greatest friends this country ever had outside of our own country was the late President Roosevelt. We never had a better one. We must maintain these friendly relations. There may be some advantage for the two central provinces in tariff restrictions and manoeuvring with trade, but my mind goes back to 1930-


An hon. Member:: Who is talking about tariff restrictions?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am talking about tariff restrictions, and I am talking about the mess we are in in this country today. That is exactly the way in which I describe it. It is nothing more or less than a mess. That is what I am talking about.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is a real mess.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That is what I have been talking about. From 1935 to 1952 this country enjoyed the greatest prosperity and expansion of any country in the world. I think you have all got to admit that. Regardless of this accomplishment, however, approximately 350,000 Canadians have chosen to leave this country and live in the United States. Why would they leave this country and go to	the United
Supply-Fisheries
States, 350,000 of them in that time? I can assure you that this trend will be much greater if tariff restrictions imposed by that government in any way interfere with the fishing industry in the Atlantic provinces because there is nothing left for those people to do. If anything happens to the fishing industry they must seek employment in some other part of this continent and the only place that can be found is the United States. I hope that we never lose sight of the fact that the United States is our warmest neighbour and always has been, our greatest market, our leading supplier of goods and services, and that we sell a great deal to that country.
I just want to leave these thoughts with the minister because I can assure him that in the maritime provinces there is nothing that is being viewed today with more seriousness than the trade situation between the maritime provinces and the United States. As I say, every maritime member here knows that what I have said is true, that if there is an imposition of tariffs by the United States on the fishing industry the economy of the maritimes will be at the lowest ebb of any time in its history.
I now want to deal with a matter of a local nature. In doing so I realize that the opinions that I shall express will not be endorsed by every citizen in my county and perhaps will not be viewed in a friendly way by the Department of Fisheries. Nevertheless it is one to which I have given a lot of thought and I believe the time has come when something should be done in this regard.
We have in Charlotte county five rivers where Atlantic salmon may be found each and every year. These rivers are New River, Pocologan river, the Magaguadavic river, the Digdeguash river and the St. Croix river.
The federal Department of Fisheries has maintained guardians on these rivers for one purpose only, to prohibit the catching of this fish in any manner other than with a fly or a lure or a floating bait; no commercial fishing in other words. While thousands and thousands of these salmon frequent our rivers, particularly the Magaguadavic and the Digdeguash rivers, these salmon have never been of any value commercially to the citizens of Charlotte county within my memory and they have never been of any value from the point of view of sports fishing.
I do believe these fish could be the greatest attraction imaginable in so far as the tourist business is concerned and they could be responsible for an enormous source of revenue. I wonder why over the years we have protected these salmon in the rivers I have

Supply-Fisheries
mentioned. I can assure the Minister of Fisheries and his department that in the past 40 years these salmon have not been worth $400 to the fishermen in my county. Last year I went out to the Digdeguash river when the salmon were running and there were thousands and thousands of salmon there. There were many people also who wanted to catch the salmon, but they just would not take, the fly although I was told by some who stayed a little late, after some of the officials had disappeared, that they would take a sunken bait.
I think the time has come to find out whether they will take a sunken bait. I think the time has come to go ahead and develop these rivers for sports fishing because I know that the revenue they would derive in this area from sports fishing would be a great deal more than we have ever derived from commercial fishing. If it were undertaken as a proper development I am sure we would not have a sufficient amount of salmon to make commercial fishing successful to any great number of fishermen. In certain parts of our province some of the salmon pools are sold to non-Canadians while our own fishermen are denied the right to fish in those pools.
I do not support this action even though it has been taken by both Liberal and Conservative provincial governments. I am still opposed to that method. I believe the salmon pools in the province of New Brunswick should be open to the citizens of New Brunswick and not sold to non-citizens from any country.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The United States of America, that is un-American.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: In reply to my hon. friend I will give him an idea of what that means in dollars and cents. I believe the Minister of Fisheries will find if he looks back in his records it is estimated that the salmon which are taken out of the Miramichi river are worth about $5 a pound to those who take them out. That may be all right but I do not believe our citizens should be denied the right to fish for salmon in our own rivers in New Brunswick.


Thomas Miller Bell: Go home Yankee, go home.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: What was that
again?


Thomas Miller Bell: I just quoted that well-known expression "Go home Yankee, go home".


John Whitney Pickersgill: With approval.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Yes, with approval?

During recent years, in fact during the last two years, our provincial government has made every effort to develop tuna fishing on the west side of the bay of Fundy. I was on the water there for 25 years and when this idea was first in the minds of the officials in Fredericton I predicted that it would never be a successful venture because in my experience on the bay of Fundy there is only one year in eight when tuna fish appear. I am told by the fisheries research board- and it seems most reasonable to me-that the ony time we ever get tuna fish is when our water temperature is higher than normal. For that reason I thought it was a most unreliable undertaking and something that would never be successful.
We nevertheless have spent many thousands of dollars in trying to develop a tuna fishery there. I believe we have an industry in sports fishing and that such a sports fishing in this area would mean thousands and thousands of tourist dollars. We have, for instance, pollack which is one of the finest fish that ever came out of the sea. It is a game fish and it may be caught in the hundreds, in fact last year it was caught in the thousands. I believe in the development of these fishing grounds where the fish can be caught and I believe it might be well for the Department of Fisheries to consider placing a great deal more emphasis on sports fishing in areas where the tourist can take advantage of it.
To support what I have said I want to quote from a bulletin which I will hand to the minister when I have finished because I am sure he will be most interested in it. This bulletin is published by the sports fishing institute of Washington and it has this to say:
The first national survey of fishing and hunting in the United States was carried out during January and February 1956 by Crossley, S-D Surveys, Incorporated, New York City, for the U.S. fish and wild life service. It revealed that 25 million sportsmen, sportswomen and sports-youngsters spent $3 billion on 500 million days of outdoor recreation while fishing and hunting during 1955.
America's most popular form of outdoor recreation-sport fishing-contributed the lion's share to the financial pot. About 21 million anglers fished regularly in 1955 and poured $2 billion-an amount greater than Canada's total national defence budget item-into U.S. business coffers in 1955. These Americans invested a major share of their total leisure time-about 400 million days-relaxing by means of the contemplated sport. Individually, anglers spent about $92 each year on the needs of their sport. They also utilized 19 days of their annual leisure time out fishing at an average daily cost of nearly $5.
To a considerable extent anglers pursued their sport afloat in outboard motor-powered boats. This fact was not given the emphasis it deserves in the survey report published by the fish and wildlife service.

Then it goes on to say further down:
Fishing and hunting-among our most popular forms of outdoor recreational use of leisure time- together generate a whopping $3 billion of business annually. This is only a little less than 1 per cent of the gross national product. Study of the statistics published by the U.S. department of commerce in its survey of current business for July, 1956, yields interesting comparisons. They help interpret the relative importance of this giant new outdoor recreational industry that is so closely dependent upon good conservation of the fishery and wildlife resources.
National outlays for the pursuit of fish and game, totalling $3 billion, are only a little less impressive than our international trade with the rest of the world. In 1955, for example, the net purchase by the rest of the world from United States business as a whole was approximately $3.8 billion.
It may be more meaningful to many people to compare the $3 billion of sportsmen expenditures to federal receipts. Among other federal tax receipts in 1955, the excise tax on liquor amounted to about $2.8 billion. The tobacco excise tax was considerably less, at nearly $1.6 billion. All other federal excise tax revenues added up to less than $5.5 billion. The state and local levels are even closer to home. At these levels income taxes, death and gift taxes, motor vehicle licenses, property taxes, and liquor and tobacco sales taxes must all be combined to reach a total (about $3.3 billion) . . .
Even all state gasoline sales tax revenues (about $2.5 billion),-
Which is about half a billion dollars less than what sport fishing is worth to the United States.
There is one other part of this I should like to quote, and this is the part which I think is most interesting to the Department of Fisheries, the third paragraph:
Despite all the attention and help which the (United States) federal government has for many decades granted to our historically-important commercial fishing industry, it remains only half as significant as sport fishing ($2 billions) to the American economy. According to a recent report by the United States Department of Interior, the ultimate retail value at consumer level of all commercial fish produced by this highly organized, mechanized, and subsidized industry is only slightly in excess of $1 billion. Though undoubtedly far below its optimum potential as a top revenue produced in ocean areas, all sport fishing is already twice as important as all commercial fishing nationally despite little federal help and much industry discrimination. Already, the value of saltwater angling alone ($489 millions) is about half that of all commercial fishing, and growing rapidly.
Since then I have seen an article in the press of the United States stating that there are only three species of salt water fish in the United States that produce a greater revenue commercially than they do for sport fishing, so I really believe the time has come when this matter should be given a lot more attention in this country of ours.
There are many other items I should like to read from this report, but I am going to leave it for the attention of the minister, such headings as-"The Hypothetical Angler", "Who Benefits?", "Expanded Research Need",
Supply-Fisheries
"Conservation and Politics", "Multiple Use of Water Supplies" and so on. All these things are very interesting, and together with this, when I do give this document to the minister, I should like him to draw to the attention of the Postmaster General the postage stamp used in the United States to bring this matter to the attention of the American people.
There is one other item I wish to touch on very briefly, and the reason I am speaking on so many different branches of the industry tonight is the fact that I will not be here tomorrow, so I should like to cover as much ground as possible before resuming my seat. I realize that this particular matter does not come within the scope of the minister's department, though it does affect the fishing industry. The sick mariners services came into effect at the time of confederation as the result of a protest from the province of New Brunswick about seamen dumped ashore from foreign vessels and then becoming the responsibility of the province. Since that time the service has been broadened to embrace many who were not eligible for benefits under the original plan. Many now engaged in the fishing industry qualify for sick mariners benefits as a result of the amendments to the act over the years. This service provides much needed protection for our fishermen. I have personal knowledge of many cases where these benefits have been of inestimable value when prolonged illness was far beyond the financial capacity of individual fishermen.
This service provides protection for many who could not afford to enter into the ordinary insurance plans; the premiums would be prohibitive for those with small incomes. I was eligible for the benefits of this generous protection for many years. Fortunately, it was not necessary for me to apply for benefits and for this I am most grateful. I have had extensive experience with those fine men who administer this service. Their prompt attention to the individual applications is recognized and appreciated not only by the fishermen but the doctors in all areas where this service applies.
There is one point, however, that should be fully investigated. I would suggest that the Department of Fisheries might lend a hand in the investigation. I refer to insured fishermen living on the international border who are obliged to be in the United States very often where their production is normally sold. In case of accident, or sudden illness, they enter a hospital or call at a doctor's office in the United States, and even though they may be 100 miles from a Canadian doctor, or hospital, their application for benefits will be disallowed by those who administer this act, even though it was an emergency case.

Supply-Fisheries
Many cases such as I have described are brought to my attention. One, in particular concerns a hard-working, honest fisherman whom I have known for many years, living on Campobello island. He experienced an illness of long duration. The nearest doctor was in Lubec, Maine. An auto ferry connects Campobello with this town in Maine, a 10-minute trip across Lubec narrows. The nearest doctor he could reach in Canada would be approximately 70 miles. His health would not allow him to travel the 140 miles, return trip, to a Canadian doctor. The doctor in Lubec, knowing his financial circumstances, adjusted his charges for calls at his office and for medicines he provided. I am sure the cost would be comparable to any service provided in Canada. Nevertheless the prolonged illness resulted in an accumulated bill of nearly $400. If this fisherman had entered a Canadian hospital the cost would have been three times this amount or more.
The Department refused to assume responsibility for this expenditure. There was no provision in the act which would cover cases such as I have outlined. I believe the act should be amended to take care of these emergency cases taking into consideration the fact that it was impossible to reach a doctor in Canada under the circumstances.
Many United States fishermen, particularly captains of freighters, have experienced the same thing while plying in Canadian waters.


Ernest James Broome: Did you bring that up with the previous government?


Mr.   Siuari@Charlotte: No, I did not. I will be honest, I did not, because until last year this had not been brought to my attention as a serious thing. But there were three or four cases that year which were really serious cases. I would not have hesitated about bringing this up before any government. That is not in my make-up. I would be as willing to take this up with a Liberal government as with the Conservative government.


James Garfield Gardiner: And more liable to get action.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: And more liable to get action. I believe some sort of a reciprocal agreement might be reached between the governments of Canada and the United States to cover cases such as I have outlined, since the United States seamen, as well, are covered by a similar insurance plan. This is a matter of great importance to those who go down to the sea in ships, and I can tell hon. members of many cases from my personal experience and knowledge of men who just could not have borne the expenditures connected with their illness without the benefit of this great service.

I am going, just once more, to refer to a very touchy matter. I am going to remind the minister once more of the great worry there is in the maritime provinces at this time about possible retaliation by the United States which might do a great deal of harm to our fishing industry. I believe this is under consideration in Washington at this very moment. The hon. member over there may smile, but I was in this industry for 25 years, and I believe I have some knowledge of it, and that I know the worry connected with it. I may state also that I went through the hungry thirties in this industry; I went on salt water four years alone to try to make a living, and for these reasons I believe I have some firsthand knowledge of what fishermen must go through in order to make a livelihood. Things are not good in the fishing industry today and I can assure the minister-and I know this is realized by every maritime member in this house and, I will say also, by the members from the Pacific coast-that this is a most serious thing-


Ernest James Broome: What is it?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: They have a fishing industry out there, too, if the hon. member does not know it.


An hon. Member:: We sell to the U.S.A.


Ernest James Broome: No, no. I am sorry, my friend, but may I interrupt you for a moment. We sell no salmon in the United States whatsoever.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Where does your wood and pulp go, to Alaska?


Ernest James Broome: We are not talking about pulpwood but about fish. Do not try to tell me that you are doing business with the United States.


Mr. Baskin:: There is too much pulpwood going to the United States, too.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: There is too much pulpwood going to the United States? I want that on the record. I want to show it to my friends in Charlotte because at this time 85 per cent of the pulp producers in my county cannot sell a cord of wood and if you can sell it for them they will appreciate it very much. They have the wood and the energy and they are willing to work but there is just no market there for them. Perhaps you think that these restrictions on the sale of Canadian commodities in the United States are a joke. I will admit that the Globe and Mail suggests we should put some restrictions on and as long as the press of this country supports such childish notions as that I do not know what we might expect. The maritimes and western provinces

including British Columbia need this natural market to the south of us. We cannot survive without that market.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So does Ontario.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Any artificial
manoeuvring with that set-up will be harmful to the maritimes and to the prairie provinces and I think generally harmful to other parts of Canada. I will leave that thought with the minister and urge upon him the necessity of his being the watch dog in the cabinet together with the other members of the cabinet from the maritime provinces to see that the fishermen in that area are protected. I thank you.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I would like first of all to join with the hon. member for Charlotte in extending my congratulations to the minister on his appointment to this portfolio. I would also like to say that I was very pleased that the minister took the opportunity soon after he assumed office to make a familiarization trip to the British Columbia coast. That, I take it, was some indication that he intends to be the Minister of Fisheries for Canada and not simply minister of fisheries for the Atlantic provinces. As a matter of fact, I believe the last two previous ministers of fisheries have been from the British Columbia coast so I suppose those of us in British Columbia really have no cause for complaint that the present Minister of Fisheries happens to come from one of the Atlantic provinces.
I believe I am correct in saying that in his remarks the hon. member for Charlotte dealt principally with the marketing aspects of the fisheries industry in Canada and so with a view to adding a little variety to our discussion I shall try to deal, in the first part of my remarks at least, with matters relating to conservation and development and increasing of our fisheries resources.
If I were looking for a text for my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I could easily find one in the Fisheries Act itself which is, of course, the principal document which must govern the activities of our Minister of Fisheries. As a matter of fact, I could probably find several texts because there are various sections of the act that deal with this matter. For example, section 48 gives the minister the power to set apart rivers and other waters for the natural or artificial propagation of fish. Section 62 gives him power to deal with people who destroy places where fish are propagated and section 57 contains some provisions which provide that payments must be made in lieu of the destruction of fisheries
Supply-Fisheries
resources. The particular section of the act that I will quote in part is section 34 which reads as follows:
34. (1) The governor in council may make regulations (a) to prevent or remedy the obstruction and pollution of streams.
Most hon. members of the house who have followed previous discussions on fisheries estimates will realize that this matter of streams in relation to the fishing industry is of very great concern to those of us who live in British Columbia. The question of what is going to happen to the future of our salmon industry is tied in very directly with what is going to be done in, on or around the great streams of our province. Incidentally, I suppose I probably could, if I wished cite the names of some British Columbia streams that would be just as unpronounceable and difficult to spell as were some of the names of streams referred to earlier by the hon. member for Charlotte.
In view of the proceedings that took place fairly recently in connection with another part of the activities of this house I felt that in drawing to the attention of the minister this particular section of the Fisheries Act I would also like to draw to his attention, to remind him and to place on the records of the house for the benefit of hon. members generally some statements which were made earlier this year in the standing committee of this house on marines and fisheries because the question of the requirements of the salmon industry, if it is to continue to grow and expand in our province, is very closely related to some of the questions that involve the providing of power in our province.
The marine and fisheries committee of the house had before it Dr. Royal, director of the international Pacific salmon commission. On page 18 of the proceedings of the committee, in answer to a question addressed to him, Dr. Royal made a statement on the problem which I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members at this time when he said:
I would particularly like to make a statement in order to bring home the need for arriving at an equitable settlement with the United States in respect of the Columbia river, more than anything else. Because, without a settlement in respect of the Columbia river, it may be necessary to have power dams on the Fraser river, and there is no answer to the problem of fish versus power on the main Fraser.
I would particularly like to emphasize that statement, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be in the interests of this discussion if I were to go on and detail some of the reasons that were given by Dr. Royal for making that statement. He went on to say:
You cannot, for instance, have one dam on the Fraser river. You can talk about building one dam on the Fraser river, but you have got to have

Supply-Fisheries
several. Any one who is an engineer knows that when you have a spring flow of 280,000 cubic feet per second, and a winter flow of 12,000 cubic feet per second, and you have to provide industry with power all year round, you have got to modify the spring flow and raise the winter flow. So, there is not such a thing possible as one dam.
Another thing that must be considered: what government is going to say that you can have one dam on the Fraser, but after that, no one can have any more? That is not democratic psychology, if you will pardon that expression. Once it starts, it needs full development of the Fraser river, and coincident with the full development is the destruction of salmon. I could take half an hour to tell you why, but I can assure you, gentlemen, that there can be no such thing as dams and salmon on the main Fraser river.
He then went on to explain that negotiations had been proceeding with the British Columbia power commission in respect to the development of certain power resources in the Fraser river system which can be developed without damage to the salmon industry. Later on, on page 19, he says:
If you can get the Columbia river development, by agreement, isolating it from all of these international ramifications, then everyone will be willing to develop the Columbia river, and to bring the power to wherever it is needed-whether it is to the Kootenays-to the lower mainland-or even Victoria. But, it is important that the agreement be settled, because they are going to need power.
Now, I am not going to suggest that either atomic energy or gas plants is the answer today, but I am going to say this; that if you read the technical literature of atomic energy, you will know that Canada and the United States are producing 30,000 tons of uranium a year now.
Further questions were asked Dr. Royal by members of the committee and on page 19 he says in answer to a question:
When you put a series of dams on the Fraser, you will be interfering with the normal migration. You are dealing with fish, and all the ingenuity of man cannot teach a fish to swim over a vertical flow without hesitating, nor will it teach a fish to swim into water that has suddenly been lowered 10 degrees lower in temperature than that which he has an inherent ability to accept as normal. If for instance you lengthen the migration period of the Stewart lake race, which migrates a distance of 850 miles at a rate of 30 miles a day without eating, for three days it will seriously interfere with the fish's ability to propagate itself. If the time were lengthened to six days they would not even get there.
Then, he goes on to describe some of the plans which have been discussed to put dams on the Fraser river, and he has this to say:
There is not a fish in the Fraser river which would get to the spawning grounds if delayed 12 days. Some of them will in six days but none in 12 days. Even then we have the problem of downstream migrants. We have a tremendous river, we have debris, and a huge volume of water. These fish are coming down the river just like chips following in the current. They have no shore line or bottom to orient themselves and you have to put something there to say, no you do not go there you go here. But every instinct that a fish has says,

I have got to go with the current, there is something wrong here but I must go with the current. There is your problem.
You will hear a lot about easy ways of solving the fish problem, but if they ever do develop the Fraser river I am saying here on record that it cannot be done and have the fishing industry as you knew it in the past and as you know it today.
Those remarks of Dr. Royal to the committee are certainly borne out by the opinions that have been expressed at various times and in various places by our Canadian scientists, and I certainly agree with the minister in the praise that he gives to the fisheries scientists of Canada. It is from those people that we have been able to derive the knowledge that this is no simple problem. I know that even if one considers a relatively small problem of attempting to accommodate fish and power the complexity multiplies almost beyond imagination.
Over on Vancouver island, in the area in which I live, there has been a good deal of discussion about a possible power development. I hold in my hand the preliminary report on the fisheries problems relating to the proposed power development of the Somass river system which, after all, is a relatively minor river and actually, speaking in terms of the size of our salmon fishery in the province as a whole, involves a relatively small proportion of our salmon stocks. But even to deal in part with the problems of maintaining those fish runs and at the same time carry on a power development involves even to a layman like myself some almost insurmountable complexities. How vast then must be the problem from a scientific and engineering point of view if one is to think in terms of the main Fraser river system. I have deliberately introduced evidence into this discussion which I think is the best scientific evidence available to us in the world, because this is perhaps one of the major matters of public concern in the province of British Columbia at the present time.
I noticed that in his introductory statement the minister did not give us any clear-cut policy declaration on this matter as to the position of the government of which he is a member. As I recall it, the policy in this respect stated by the previous minister of fisheries was fairly well known. He made it quite clear that as far as he was concerned no salmon stream in the province of British Columbia, on the basis of our present scientific knowledge, should be developed for power until we had used all of our nonsalmon streams, and that even after that had taken place the whole question of the use of salmon-spawning streams for power purposes was one which would have to receive very careful assessment and review. Before

this item carries I hope the minister will give us as clear-cut a statement as to where the government of which he is a member stands on this important question. I am happy to say that I felt fully able to support the policy pronouncement by the previous minister in this respect and I hope I shall be able to say that I am prepared to support the policy statement which the present minister will give in this respect.
The whole question, Mr. Chairman, of course, has aspects and ramifications that go far beyond the federal Department of Fisheries itself; but I think the power that rests in our present constitution and under the authority of this parliament with the Minister of Fisheries is pretty clearly defined in relation to what can or cannot be done in this respect, and that in many ways one can fairly say that the Minister of Fisheries has the whip hand in this matter. Therefore I think the people of British Columbia are entitled to know where he stands upon it.
I was saying, however, that it has aspects which do go beyond the narrower limits of the responsibility of a federal Minister of Fisheries. It has, of course, ramifications that go into the field of activity that is carried on as a result of decisions made in the legislature of our province. I think one of the broader aspects that the people of British Columbia are going to have to take into consideraion involves some of the assumptions that have been made that the present lopsided development of our province is necessary and desirable. By that I mean to say that in a province which would easily swallow two or three fair-sized European countries within its borders most of the population is at present concentrated in one little corner.
Some of the statements made about the development of power on the Fraser or on the Columbia seem to be predicated on the idea that endless expansion of power requirements for the population in that one little corner of the province is something which is going to have to continue and should continue. I am not suggesting this is a matter which the Minister of Fisheries should solve tonight but it is a question about which I believe the people of British Columbia should be thinking a great deal more than they have. Some of the statements revolving around the question of bringing Columbia river power into the lower mainland area are predicated on that assumption.
Yet we have vast areas of the province which are among the most sparsely populated parts of the country and not all these areas are areas that are covered by 10,000-foot
Supply-Fisheries
mountain peaks. Various suggestions which have been made relating to the whole question of power and the use of the Fraser or Columbia or both for power purposes are affected by proposals for the development of power and other resources in the Rocky mountain trench. That, of course, is a subject of considerable controversy in the arena of discussion in British Columbia. I know that when C.C.F. spokesmen in the legislature of British Columbia have objected to what is known as the Wenner-Gren arrangement or deal, suggestions have been made that the C.C.F. is opposed to the development of the Rocky mountain trench. Naturally I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter quite thoroughly with some of these people and I should like to say that to my knowledge there is no objection to the development of that particular part of our province or of any other part of the province but rather to the particular method which the present provincial administration apparently wishes to follow in that development. That method, of course, is to place an area almost the size of England in the hands of one private development corporation.


Mr. Patterson:: That is not right at all.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have seen the memorandum of intent.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I have too.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have seen the memorandum of intent and I have read it several times.


Alexander Bell Patterson: So have I.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: And I have listened to it being discussed. However, as I say, my main purpose in bringing this subject into the discussion is because it has been related to the whole question of power development in the more southerly rivers.


John Horne Blackmore: Just because you want to play dirty politics.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Of course, when people say things with which the hon. member for Lethbridge does not agree and about which he probably does not know a great deal he always suggests that it is dirty politics.


John Horne Blackmore: You do not now know anything about it.


Harold Edward Winch: When you refer to dirty politics, what is it that is before the courts of British Columbia now?


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am just trying to recall where I was. I was saying that this question is one of great importance and in order to clarify what I have in mind to say I was trying to point out that, contrary to allegations

Supply-Fisheries
that have been made that the C.C.F. is opposed to the development of the northeastern part of the province, our opposition has been to the particular method which the present provincial administration proposes to follow.


Frederick George Hahn: You find the money and we will perhaps do it another way.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Starting from that point and assuming that the provincial government of British Columbia really wants to see the development of that part of the country take place, as does the C.C.F.-


Frederick George Hahn: You would not know it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -I come now to the point I wish to make.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Are there any fish up there at all?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Perhaps it might be wise to decide that the time has come to carry out the kind of dreams for the future I have heard expressed by some of the old time citizens of Prince George. Rather than attempting the difficult feat of transporting power over long distances, it might be wise to begin thinking in terms of having our industries and population a little closer to the power sources.


Mr. Beech:: What has that got to do with fisheries?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: By that I mean to say that if engineering studies reveal that the proposed development of the Peace and its tributaries is a feasible one, one which is in the interests of the province and can be done without affecting too adversely the interests of any adjoining province, then it might be wise to go into that thoroughly with a view to postponing at least the day when a decision might have to be made with respect to the alternatives of fish or power on the Fraser river system.
I make this suggestion to the committee at this time so that the present Minister of Fisheries, coming as he does from the opposite side of the country, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, may have in his mind some of the things that are going on in British Columbia in this connection and some of the views which are being expressed. I sincerely hope that when members from the party across the way take part in the discussion they will be prepared to offer the minister the benefit of their advice.


Frederick George Hahn: Do not worry about us, we will look after ourselves; we are quite capable.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: To come back more directly to the question of fisheries, may I say I think one of the most important things for

us to have at this stage is a clear-cut statement of the position of the minister, speaking on behalf of the government he represents, outlining their view on the preservation or otherwise of the great salmon industry of British Columbia. While we all hope that our scientists may be able to find a way to resolve some of these complex problems and while I am prepared to urge that much greater resources be devoted to scientific and engineering investigation of these matters than has heretofore been the case, nevertheless I think that until these conditions are met we should know whether or not we are in fact going to have a salmon industry to conduct research with respect to the main streams of the province.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, in discussing the future of the salmon industry as it is related to the present and potential resources of the Fraser river system, I think we should not overlook what we may be able to do to enlarge that industry by the proper cultivation, if I may use that word, of some of the many other salmon streams along the coast of British Columbia. I have read some of the reports and have referred to them before in the house about the destruction that takes place of potential salmon runs as the result of flash floods on our streams along the coast. I have had discussions with people who live and work in the areas. They have described to me how obstructions develop. Because these streams are largely unattended and proper precautions have not been taken to control the flow or to prevent the building of log jams, much of what might be future salmon runs is lost from these streams either because of washing out of the salmon eggs or on other occasions and under different climatic conditions because the water level in the stream is not such as-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I have to remind the hon. member that his time has expired.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If I might finish my sentence, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate the courtesy. I notice that it is almost ten o'clock. Unless it was desired otherwise in the committee, perhaps I could be allowed to continue, with the idea possibly that the next speaker would be first at the next sitting.


Charles Edward Rea: Has the
hon. member leave of the house to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As I was saying in discussing the question of the development of our smaller salmon streams, as I understand it, not only are the future runs lost as a result

of flash floods and the forming of log jams but also on many occasions because no development of these streams has taken place for any controlled level of flow the spawning salmon are not able actually to get up the streams to the spawning grounds.
I am sure that the Minister of Fisheries can be very well and completely advised on these problems by the officials and scientists of his department. My only point in raising these matters in a very general way and possibly with not complete accuracy in every detail is that I feel the members of this house generally should appreciate what might be done greatly to expand this source of high protein food to which the minister was referring in his opening remarks. His opening remarks made reference to the fact that the population of the world is increasing and to the fact that the population of the world was going to have increasing difficulty to find adequate sources of high protein food. With all of these phrases he used in his opening remarks in that connection I agree most thoroughly.
All I am suggesting to him is that he should translate those remarks into some specific statement of policy as far as they apply to the future of the salmon industry of British Columbia. These are things with which we cannot deal in generalities in view of what is happening in that area. If one is to agree that the future of high protein food is important, these are matters on which we must take a firm stand now. I am sure the minister is aware that, as I understand the statements which have been given to us by the scientists, it is not a matter of deciding that we are going to have our power now and our fish later, particularly with reference to the sockeye our most valuable salmon species, but that once those particular species of salmon are gone, they are gone and, to use the old phrase, they will be as extinct as the dodo. No matter how able or how clever our scientists may be, there will be no way of bringing them back. If this question of protein food to meet the future needs of mankind is as important as the minister suggests it is, I think he should back up his words as I suggest with a fairly definite statement as to how we are going to meet the more immediate situation.
Business of the House


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, may we call it ten o'clock?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh.
let us have a speech.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what the business of the house is for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall continue with the fisheries estimates. Then we shall take the estimates of the Department of National Revenue and then the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


Lionel Chevrier: And on Monday?


Howard Charles Green: Provided the motion which appears in Votes and Proceedings today is adopted by the house tomorrow, Monday would be a government day. We would commence with item No. 7 on today's order paper, second reading of a bill in respect of a loan to the government of New Brunswick; then item No. 8, which has to do with electric power development in the Atlantic provinces; then item No. 5 on today's order paper, second reading of a bill to provide for stabilization of prices of agricultural commodities; then item No. 2 on today's order paper, second reading of a bill to provide for annual vacations with pay; then item No. 4, second reading of a bill to implement an agreement between Canada and Australia in respect of income tax. The same program would be carried into Tuesday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister any ideas about Wednesday?


Howard Charles Green: I am not sure about Wednesday but probably it would be a continuation of this legislation, although we may have to go into estimates. If we do so, we will consult with the parties to come to an agreement about what should be taken up.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on December 2, 1957.
[Stage Direction]
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. Stuart (Charlotte): 1.	Have any improvements been planned for the Royal Canadian Air Force station at Summerside, Prince Edward Island?
2.	If so, (a) of what nature; (b) at what estimated cost; (c) when is it expected the work will be started?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):
1. Yes.
Nature
Estimated cost Work to be started
(b)	(o)
$ 450,000	Spring 1958
73,750	Winter 1957/58
45,000	Work has started
3,000,000	Summer 1958
400,000	Summer 195S
524,000	Summer 1958
557,000	Summer 1958
830,000	Summer 1958
390,000	Summer 1958
1,254,000	Spring 1958
380,000	Spring 1958
.	(a)	.
Underground electrical distribution and communications
system part 2	
Interior painting of hangars 1 to 5	
High intensity approach and runway lighting	
Maintenance hangar	
Readiness hangar	
Anti-corrosion hangar	
Armament storage and assembly facilities	
Airfield development and roads	
Bulk fuel handling facilities and rail spur	
Central heating plant, water, sewage and electrical services.... Grading and fencing	
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
Combines Investigation Act-
179.	Restrictive trade practices commission, $79,465.
180.	Office of investigation and research, $455,375 (amended, reduced to $435,375).
181.	Bankruptcy Act administration, $48,985.
B-Penitentiaries-
182.	Administration of the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries, including $60,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by the treasury board, $482,446.
183.	Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries, including supplies and services relating thereto; administration, operation, repair and upkeep of buildings, works and equipment; maintenance, discharge and transfer of inmates; compensation to discharged inmates permanently disabled while in penitentiaries, $11,002,925.
184.	Construction, improvements and equipment, $2,365,555 (amended, reduced by $1,000,000). Headquarters administration, national police services and training establishments-
396.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $7,329,030.
397.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $912,129.
Land and air services-
398.	Operation and maintenance of divisions, $26,472,859.
399.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $3,351,070 (amended, reduced by $250,000).
Marine services-
400.	Operation and maintenance, $1,432,229.
401.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $1,369,311.
402.	Grant to the Canadian association of chiefs of police, $500.
403.	Grant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police veterans' association, $300.
Pensions and other benefits-
404.	Pensions to families of members of the mounted police who have lost their lives while on duty, as detailed in the estimates, $6,439.
(S) Pension to Basil	Burke Currie	(vote 405,
Appropriation Act No. 6, 1956), $685.
405.	Government's contribution to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension account, $986,710.
A-Department-
General-
626. Expenses of the Royal commission on the
criminal law relating to criminal sexual phycho-paths, $7,500.
Loans, investments and advances-
Justice-
Penitentiaries-
660. To extend the operation of the revolving fund established by vote 628 of the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1955, to authorize the acquiring and managing of any stores or materials required for penitentiary use; the amount to be charged to the revolving rund at any time not to exceed $600,000; additional amount required, $300,000.
A-Department-
697.	Remission service-further amount required to provide for a grant of $1,000 to the Canadian Corrections Association, $1,000.
Yukon territorial court-
698.	Administration, including administration of justice-Yukon territory-further amount required, $10,000.
B-Penitentiaries-
699.	Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries, including supplies and services relating thereto; administration, operation, repair and upkeep of buildings, works and equipment; maintenance, discharge and transfer of inmates; compensation to discharged inmates permanently disabled while in penitentiaries-further amount required, $39,000.
700.	To provide for a credit to the revolving fund established pursuant to vote 628 of the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1955, to meet the deficiency arising from over-valuation of inventory, $6,642.

[Stage Direction]
Headquarters administration, national police services and training establishments-
739.	Administration, operation and maintenance-further amount required, $66,000.
740. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $63,100.
Land and air services-
741.	Operation and maintenance of divisions- further amount required, $290,000.
Marine services-
742. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $408,060.
Pensions and other benefits-
743.	Government's contribution to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension account-further amount required, $111,088.


[Stage Direction]
queen's printer and controller of stationery OTTAWA, 1958
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 10, 1957