1959-06-19

PRIVILEGE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that during my absence while welcoming the Queen yesterday the hon. member for Essex East rose on a question of privilege and made certain allegations and statements. Your Honour was kind enough to suggest that in my absence, and because I was involved in the point of privilege, I should have an opportunity to comment on it, and recommended that the matter be left there.
Before I make any comment at all on the statements made yesterday by the hon. member for Essex East, may I read the pertinent portions of the remarks referred to by him which appear at page 4827 of Hansard of June 17, where I am reported as having said:
Here we have but a piece of paper containing a motion-
I was referring to the motion in question that was before the house. I continue:
-ingeniously contrived in order to sow suspicion. The hon. gentleman moving the motion will not take his stand behind the truth of the allegations and the alleged wrongdoing of the hon. member for Peel.
I emphasize those words "the alleged wrongdoing of the hon. member for Peel". I continue:
I say this. I hope I shall never allow any hon. member to be struck in his honour and integrity by a motion such as this, a motion of suspicion fortified only by questions, with the mover holding the high and responsible position of Leader of the Opposition refusing to accept his personal responsibility to make a charge on the basis of his opinion and belief with respect to the alleged findings of wrongdoing by a judge.
What I said was, "The findings of the judge were alleged to be allegations of wrongdoing", and that was made very clear earlier in my remarks, which cannot be taken out of context.
From time to time this matter comes up, and I am not going to deal with the cases which have been before the house on previous occasions, which arise from the fact that changes are made in order to make good sense without changing the purport. The hon. gentleman says that what was said was:
-with respect to the alleged findings of a judge in that direction.
66968-9-312
Well, grammatically that does not make sense. "In that direction" refers, of course, to the alleged wrongdoing of the hon. member for Peel. May I say this. There has not been and was not any material change either in sense or in meaning. I want to make that most clear. The words "in that direction" are grammatically unclear. What I recall saying, but I am not going to argue it, is "in that connection". I stated then, and I now state, that the opposition endeavoured to distort the findings of the judge in order to allege wrongdoing on the part of the hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Pearson:: Stick to the point.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the Prime Minister that in dealing with the alteration of Hansard it would not be proper to refer to the debate.


John George Diefenbaker: All right, Mr. Speaker, but I have to make very clear the fact that there was no change in sense or in meaning, and I make that very clear now. I have no objection whatever, none whatever, although grammatically it is bad, to the restoration of any words suggested by the hon. member for Essex East. This question has been up on many occasions before. I remember prime minister St. Laurent on one occasion, in the course of a question asked relative to the Canadian forces not remaining in Berlin, saying in the house, "They were kicked out".


Mr. Pickersgill:: Another diversion.


John George Diefenbaker: And the next day Hansard showed it as "They were left out". That was a change that is not in keeping with the traditions of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The usual chivalry.


John George Diefenbaker: I have seen my hon. friends opposite day after day reading their blues and making alterations. I think it is well that this is brought up because I think the house might pretty well decide-I know I am going to make a very careful examination from now on of all the changes day by day as I see the rereading taking place in this house-that changes are not to be made.
I think this is just another example of what I believe should become the rule of the house and adhered to by all, that there should be no changes whatever, grammatical or otherwise, in order to bring out the sense.
I simply state that there is no change whatsoever in meaning or in reference to

Question of Privilege
the alleged findings of the judge, that is, alleged by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) as being evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the member for Peel (Mr. Pallett). Those alleged findings were non-existent, and I leave it there for Your Honour to determine.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, in introducing his remarks the Prime Minister referred to the fact that I had raised this question of privilege when the Prime Minister was absent from the house, having gone to Newfoundland to welcome Her Majesty the Queen. I suspect that in making these introductory observations he wished to leave the implication that I had taken unfair advantage of him.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why did you mention it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister, of course, now knows perfectly well that a question of privilege must be raised at the earliest opportunity. I would have been remiss in my duty if I had not raised the question at once. Your Honour will recall that before the proceedings began I mentioned that I intended to raise this question as a matter of privilege; and when Your Honour quite properly, and I think fairly, suggested that, having raised the question, it should be allowed to rest until the Prime Minister's return I acceded at once.
The Prime Minister now wishes to correct the impression which I say he left with me that he was suggesting that in making these representations I had taken unfair advantage of his absence and I now accept his correction, if I understand him correctly that he does not wish to leave that impression.
The Prime Minister has said that there was no material change in sense or meaning. That may be the case if the argument is addressed to what the Prime Minister said, but what the Prime Minister fails to observe is the nature of the question of privilege. My question of privilege was that, having said as I did say and as is correctly reported at page 4829 of Hansard, namely:
The Prime Minister referred to this same judgment as an alleged finding. No prime minister-
The Prime Minister intervened at that point and is reported as having said, "An alleged finding?" Then I went on to say:
The Prime Minister's words are there to be scrutinized and observed by everyone. The Prime Minister said that. While this might be understandable in the mouth of a lay prime minister, it certainly is not proper for the Prime Minister, a distinguished advocate in the criminal courts of our country, to refer to a finding of a judge as an alleged finding. Whether we agree with the decisions of our courts or not, once those decisions
(Mr. Diefenbaker.]
are made then unless appealed they must not be referred to in the language used by the Prime Minister as "alleged findings".
So if the words which the Prime Minister said offer no material change in sense or meaning were allowed to constitute the record of the house they would certainly alter the meaning of what I said in the words I have just quoted as being reported correctly at page 4829 of Hansard.
Now, I suggested that my version of what the Prime Minister said was correct, and that the version of what the Prime Minister is reported on page 4827 as having said is incorrect and represents an alteration contrary to the practice and the usages of the house. In support of my contention that the reported words of the Prime Minister were not in conformity with what he actually said I produced yesterday the stenographic report of the Hansard reporter, which clearly indicates that the Prime Minister did not use words other than these in concluding his remarks, and I shall read the whole sentence:
I hope I shall never allow any member to be struck in his honour and integrity on the basis of a motion such as this, suspicion fortified by questions, with a member of the house holding the high and responsible position-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am reminded by the Clerk that the document from which the hon. member is reading is not official Hansard and that it has not been the practice of the house to cite such a document. If the hon. member will note the tag which appears on the first copy made by the reporters, it is stated on it that this is not to be the official copy. I myself have no recollection of the practice of the house in this matter, but that is what the Clerk advises me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the question of practice, I would suggest that that is not the case. The Minister of Justice only the other day used this very same-


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: On
a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker; certainly I had the document in front of me, but I was careful to make it clear I was not quoting from the document. I was not relying on it. In fact I did not quote from that document. I had it in front of me to make certain what I was saying reflected accurately what the Leader of the Opposition had said. The hon. member for Essex East is totally unjustified in trying to justify what he is doing on the basis of what I did.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, may be certain that I do not very willingly resort to precedents he has established to justify my conduct and my actions, but in this case I think I must.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, you say this is the practice, but that is a matter of opinion. There is no rule on the matter, whether or not there is a practice. Under our rules there is nothing to preclude what I have done or what the Minister of Justice did.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why do you keep on asserting what is not correct?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What was that observation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why does my hon. friend keep on asserting what is not correct?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Justice is now encouraging the usual avalanche of obstruction from this government that regards its majority as a way of delaying-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest we try to follow a straight line. We seem to be embarking on a number of cross currents and explanations. If the hon. member would complete his reference to the question of privilege which he raises, then I think the matter would be concluded.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I quite agree, Mr. Speaker.
I hope I shall never allow any member to be struck in his honour and integrity on the basis of a motion such as this, suspicion fortified by questions with a member of the house holding the high and responsible position of Leader of the Opposition refusing to accept his personal responsibility to make a charge-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -on the basis of his opinion and belief with respect to the alleged findings of a judge-


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: A point of order has been raised by the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can a point of order be raised on a question of privilege?


Howard Charles Green: Your Honour stated a few minutes ago that it was not the practice to read from these preliminary takes, as they are called, of statements made in the house, yet the hon. member for Essex East, ignoring that statement and ignoring the practice, is going right ahead and reading it as though nothing had been said. Now, as a matter of common sense, it would be very unfair if we permitted these preliminary takes to be read. They have not been checked by the editor of Hansard. They simply come from the reporter and are placed on the desk of the editor of Hansard to be corrected.
66968-9-312J
Question of Privilege
I know from personal experience that quite frequently there will be an obvious mistake. The reporter may be called in by the editor to check up and be sure that the transcript is right. These first takes frequently have errors in them, and it would be absolutely ridiculous to establish a practice in this house under which members could get up and quote these first drafts as the gospel truth, and go on to base arguments on them. If we are going to allow a practice of that kind, then there is no telling where we will end up. I suggest to Your Honour that Your Honour should find that these takes should not be quoted in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to hear the hon. member for Essex East on the same point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your Honour will recognize that it is a well established rule that when a question of privilege is being raised it is wholly improper to raise a point of order as the hon. gentleman has just done.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. members say "No, no". I ask them to look at the famous case of Mr. Gladstone and see whether that is not the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: As the matter has now been raised as a point of order I feel that I cannot leave it at the observation which I made previously. No precedent has been cited to me on this point, as to the propriety of reading this unofficial first transcript of the reporter's notes. If the hon. member can cite any authority I should be glad to have it. It was on the advice of the Clerk of the house, who is experienced in these matters, that I called the hon. member's attention to the situation and said that it had not been the practice to do this. I did not stop him because I am not sure there is an established rule which prevents him from reading this document for the purpose of establishing that there was a change. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has raised the question, and I am at a loss to decide whether or not there is an established practice of the house which prevents the hon. member from proceeding.
However, I think it is not in issue that there was a change. As I understood the Prime Minister, from his explanation or his answer to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member, he felt that the changes he had made were in accordance with the practice of the house. The hon. member does not have to pursue the point in order to establish that changes were made.

Question of Privilege


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, you asked what are the arguments in favour of this particular course. In reply one could ask what are the arguments against it, or what authorities are there. There are none. I referred to the precedent of the similar act of the Minister of Justice the other day, which I regard not as a powerful precedent coming from that particular quarter-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will my hon. friend-


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the Minister of Justice to say-and it is a matter within his own knowledge and the hon. member must accept his statement-that he had not been quoting.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I should read what
appears in Hansard to establish the accuracy of what I said. It appears at page 4831:
Here is what the Leader of the Opposition said about that statement as I took down his words this morning and made notes of them and if he believes I am misrepresenting them I shall be glad to be corrected. As I understood him this morning, he said that the Prime Minister's contention that a charge would be required, and the statement by myself that a charge must be embodied in the motion, and the Prime Minister's statement that there had to be an allegation of improper conduct whereby the member concerned had furthered his private interests, had no foundation whatsoever.
I was not quoting from a document, nor are there any quotation marks appearing in Hansard. I had before me a certain document which I paraphrased, and I made it clear that I was not quoting any document or representing it as being an official report of what was said. That procedure is entirely different from what the hon. member for Essex East did. When the hon. member for Essex East seeks to represent that I quoted from a document he is stating what he himself knows to be false.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask you to ask the Minister of Justice to withdraw those last remarks to the effect that I made a statement knowing it to be false. I will put my reputation against that of the Minister of Justice any time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister stated that the hon. member for Essex East made a statement knowing it to be false, I would certainly ask him to withdraw that charge.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If you rule that the word "false" in that context is unparliamentary-


Mr. Speaker:: May I make it clear that in my view to charge that an hon. member knowingly said something which was false is not in accordance with our practice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In that case, perhaps, in view of your ruling, I might say that the hon. member is stating what the record shows to be incorrect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is clear from what the minister said that he was using the Hansard preliminary sheets, as I am doing now, to establish the usage of certain words.


An hon. Member:: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, hon. gentlemen say the opposite, and I propose to continue'-


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member proceeds, I feel that as the point has been raised I must ask the hon. member either to give me a chance to determine whether there is foundation for this point of order or to desist, and I give him the choice of deferring this matter until I have looked into the question or refraining from reading further from that particular document.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the position Your Honour is taking is quite proper as to the course which is to be followed, and all I can say is that the Hansard sheets to which I made reference confirm my own understanding of what the Prime Minister said and, as a matter of fact, the implications of the Prime Minister himself clearly establish that the words which he originally used were those contained in the Hansard record which I used in support of the contention I made yesterday.
In this context I might remind the Prime Minister of what I did say yesterday. At page 4861 of Hansard for yesterday, a little more than half way down the first column. I said this:
My question of privilege is that this change in the unrevised edition of Hansard alters the meaning of what I said. What the Prime Minister said was "a charge on the basis of his opinion and belief in respect to the alleged findings of a judge in that direction." These were the words X took down as being the words uttered in this house yesterday by the Prime Minister. I find that this is confirmed by some of my colleagues who likewise took down the Prime Minister's words. But lest there be any doubt in the matter, I have yesterday's Hansard blues which confirm what I myself took down and which read as follows:
"A charge on the basis of his opinion and belief with respect to the alleged findings of a judge in that direction."
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister sought to use this particular situation to indicate what he thought should be our practice in the future. Perhaps I should remind the Prime Minister of what he said in this house on April 17 of this year when the hon. member for Trinity had called his attention

to an alteration of words in Hansard. The Prime Minister replied on that occasion:
I know the hon. gentleman is a model of accuracy, and for that reason I would like the opportunity to say this. The blue copy which was sent down by Hansard is exactly as it appears today in yesterday s Hansard. I do not make it a habit to change Hansard, in order to alter what appears there, except in so far as changes are made by my staff in the ordinary run of things. Yesterday when the blue was brought to my attention it did not contain the word "inexcusably". However, I recall having said that, but I would not alter Hansard in order to change the meaning or purport of the context prepared by Hansard.
And then on June 8, in the official report of Hansard, the Prime Minister is reported as having said:
Mr. Speaker, I think this is the first time I have corrected Hansard, but I think this should be corrected. It is at page 4363, following a discussion in which there was not that unanimity between members of the opposition that there is sometimes, and I said I would suggest that the two sides get together. Hansard reports it as "fit" together.
So on several occasions this session the Prime Minister has had the kind of running interference with which this particular situation again confronts him.
I think the Prime Minister, having suggested for our consideration what we should do in the future, would want me to repeat, and remind him in the house, of the words used by the then leader of the opposition, his former leader, Mr. Drew, who at page 1103 of Hansard for February 13, 1956 said:
I submit that there are well established rules in regard to the printing, in regard to the amendments, in regard to the nature of the corrections which go much farther than those that have been suggested. There are long established rules governing how corrections are to be made. Certain changes can be made by the member speaking.
Then the leader of the opposition of that day at page 1104 quoted a statement made by Mr. Speaker Black in an earlier session:
Instructions for any alterations in the official report of the debates should not be given without communicating them to the house in session, and for this reason, whenever I have deemed it advisable, to direct that certain statements be expunged,
I have done so from the chair, thus giving a ruling which, under standing order 12, is subject to an appeal to the house.
These words of Mr. Drew and this whole situation will, I am sure, cause the Prime Minister to recognize the validity and usefulness of the words he used on April 12 when he said, "I do not make it a habit to change Hansard."


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the hon.
gentleman for the references he has made.
I can assure him and those associated with him that the most careful examination will be made of all changes such as I indicated that come within the purview of the rights of members, to the end that hon. gentlemen
13, 1959	4927
Japanese Textile Exports Suspended opposite should maintain the same traditions which they say apply here and with which I entirely agree, namely that changes must not change the purport and the meaning- and the change in question did not.



TEXTILES-ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN EXPORTS FROM JAPAN

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the house that an announcement was made yesterday in Tokyo concerning the export to Canada of certain textile items. The government of Japan announced that, effective June 18, the issuance of new export licences would be suspended for a broad range of textile exports in the category of apparel. The announcement did not specify the term during which the suspension would remain in effect.
This action by the Japanese government is to be welcomed as an important additional step toward the development of a more orderly and effective system of export controls relating to trade in textiles between Japan and Canada.
As the house will realize, and as the Japanese government realizes, it is in the interests of both countries that trade should grow in an orderly fashion and that there should be no repetition of the conditions of 30 years ago, when a flood of cheap Japanese goods into Canadian markets did irreparable damage to Canadian producers and manufacturers with prolonged adverse results to our mutual trade relations.
The announcement by the Japanese government affects two broad categories of goods. One relates to spun rayon, cottons and mixtures of these and other synthetics, and includes such items as brassieres, underwear, dress and work shirts and skirts. The other relates to spun rayon, mixtures of spun rayon and rayon, and mixtures of which the main component is spun rayon. In this second group fall blouses and sport shirts of spun rayon; coats and slacks of spun rayon, including short pants, overalls including work clothes, car coats, raincoats and other dresses and coats, jackets and windbreakers, summer suit sets, play suits and beach sets, gowns and pyjamas; knitted underwear and outwear, including T-shirts, blouses, sport shirts, sweaters, slacks, gowns and pyjamas and other underwear and outwear.
Over the past year and particularly in recent months there has occurred an extraordinary increase in Japanese exports to Canada of a number of lines of textile products. The excessive inflow of such goods has
4928	HOUSE OF
Japanese Textile Exports Suspended created an extremely difficult situation for Canadian textile manufacturers. The flood of Japanese goods into this field has gone far beyond what might be considered as orderly participation in the Canadian market for textiles, and particularly wearing apparel. It has unquestionably damaged the position of our Canadian manufacturers of certain lines of finished textiles. There has developed as well a serious threat of injury to other sectors of the industry. Already the producers of primary textiles are feeling the inevitable consequences, and these are bound to become more severe.
I have received strong representations from Canadian manufacturers of textiles and textile products, including apparel, in this regard. Having carefully reviewed the circumstances the government of Canada came to the conclusion that the loss of business suffered by Canadian producers and manufacturers as a result of the competition from Japanese goods entering our markets had reached serious proportions, and that if the situation were allowed to continue unchecked even greater damage to their interests was possible.
Accordingly discussions were undertaken with the representatives of the Japanese government in Ottawa and Tokyo, in the course of which the views of the Canadian government were communicated to them. Within recent days I have held discussions with the Japanese ambassador which gave me the opportunity to state the Canadian position. This meeting was followed up by meetings between senior officials of the Canadian government and representatives of the Japanese government.
We were informed only last night of the decision of the Japanese government respecting the suspension of the issuance of new export licences. It is to be noted that the announcement does not affect export licences which are already outstanding. Therefore at this stage we do not know precisely the volume of goods which will be shipped under outstanding export licences.
The announcement will require more careful study before a detailed assessment of its full implications can be made. Nevertheless it would appear that the suspension of the issuance of new export licences in respect of these products would affect something more than a quarter of our total apparel imports from Japan, and would cover many items where the degree of penetration by Japanese competition in our markets has been substantial. Apart from the restraints given effect by yesterday's announcement, Japan has had in operation for some time voluntary export quotas on a variety of items of apparel made of cotton and cotton mixtures. If account is taken of these measures as well


as yesterday's announcement, it would appear that licences are either suspended or under control for three-quarters of the textile apparel items now entering Canada from Japan.
The announcement by the Japanese government is, therefore, welcomed. However, the measures announced in Tokyo yesterday are to be regarded as of a temporary nature until such time as a longer term and more comprehensive solution can be worked out covering textiles in general. We shall, therefore, continue our conversations with the Japanese government with a view to the orderly development of Japanese-Canadian trade which both governments desire.
With permission of the house, Mr. Speaker, I will table copies of the items for which the issuing	of	new export	licences has
been suspended by the Japanese government.
Hon.	L.	B.	Pearson (Leader of theOpposition): Mr. Speaker, it will be noticed from the minister's statement that the Japanese government has undertaken certain additional voluntary controls on their exports to Canada as the result, I take it, of a request on the	part	of	the Canadian	government.It will	also	be	realized that	this request
was made of a government which already, I believe, has a highly unfavourable balance of trade with Canada. In other words we export more to Japan than Japan exports to Canada. It is to be hoped, therefore, that action of this kind will not interfere with Canadian exports to Japan which are already of such very great importance to us.
I make that observation with the more emphasis because of the export figures which were published today for the month of May and the first five months of this year, which show that during the month of May our exports were down 10 per cent and that during the five months they were down 3 per cent. These figures also show that the greatest decrease in our exports is to those countries outside the commonwealth and the United States, where the exports for the five months have dropped from $396 million to $316 million, and that list of countries includes Japan.
It is therefore very important that nothing should be done which would interfere with our export trade to a country which already has an unfavourable balance of trade with this country.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the announcement just made by the Minister of Finance I might say first of all that this will be somewhat of a continuing problem as a result of the development of these, shall I say, new economies.

We welcome the understanding and the sense of responsibility shown by the government of Japan in meeting the Canadian problem and our representations in this way. We welcome it as evidence of co-operation emanating from a spirit of good will. We are quite certain that in that spirit an equitable solution to these problems will be found in days to come.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition indicated some concern about our exports. I believe I can assure the house that the action now taken by the Japanese government and announced yesterday will have no bearing whatever on Canada's exports to Japan. The position taken by the Japanese government is completely in accord with the views and policies of the Japanese government as declared at all levels, ministerial and official, in relation to the orderly development of trade with Canada.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid I must occupy a minute or two of the time of the house myself. It is my responsibility to rule upon a point of order which arose on Wednesday last and was then debated at length and with vigour. I wish to thank the several hon. members representative of all parties who gave the house the benefit of their views.
The question was whether or not the notice of motion relating to the conduct of the hon. member for Peel which had been given by the Leader of the Opposition properly raised a prima facie question of privilege for determination by the house through its standing committee on privileges and elections, to which the motion would refer the matter for examination and report.
The question is of considerable importance. If the notice of motion properly raises a question of the privileges of the house it is entitled under standing order 17 to be taken into consideration immediately, all other business being laid aside until the debate is concluded. On the other hand, if the motion is not to be regarded as one of privilege the motion would have to take its turn with other notices of motion by private members, which at this stage of the session would mean it would have very little prospect of being called even if in fact it is entitled at all to be placed on the order paper. The subject matter could be and in fact has been raised in the house and debated in other ways.
The factual basis for the motion as it appears in the notice itself and in the arguments put forth in the house is simple. It
Business of the House
is that the president of the exchequer court, Mr. Justice Thorson, in his reasons for judgment, sessional paper No. 237, makes certain affirmations about the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett). These affirmations are summarized in items 1 to 8 in the notice of motion. Perhaps the house will permit me to dispense with reading these as all members have them.
It is noteworthy:
(1)	That the judgment is a public document but is not a document required to be submitted to the House of Commons.
(2)	It became a sessional paper by leave of the house when the Prime Minister tabled it in response to a request from a member of the opposition.
(3)	The reasons for the judgment were given in cross-actions between Aileen M. Drew and Her Majesty the Queen, which arose from the expropriation of the property of Aileen M. Drew on February 12, 1954, for the Malton airport, the compensation to be paid her not having been agreed upon. She claimed the sum of $17,330, the amount of a valuation made by Mr. J. E. S. Clare, alleging an agreement between herself and Her Majesty acting through the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) that Mr. Clare should appraise the property and both parties should be bound by his evaluation. There are said to be 10 other requests in which the circumstances are similar. The crown successfully denied the alleged agreement and asked the court to fix the compensation for the expropriated property. In the result, the judgment awards to Aileen M. Drew compensation of $11,200 and interest.
(4)	The hon. member for Peel was the member of parliament for the constituency in which the properties are situated. As the judgment recites, he had been solicitor for Aileen M. Drew but "dissociated himself from this capacity" after the general election in June, 1957, which resulted in a change of the administration in Ottawa. He was a witness in the action but not a party or a solicitor, and the learned judge's references to him were made in the course of his summary of the evidence and not because such conduct was an issue in the case.
In view of these observations in the judgment and without any conclusion being drawn from them or any charges made by any hon. member against the hon. member for Peel, the house is asked to direct its committee on privileges and elections:
(1)	To examine the actions and statements of the hon. member for Peel in connection with the evaluation and expropriation.
(2)	To report generally on these matters.

Business of the House
(3)	In particular, to consider and report whether the conduct of the hon. member was contrary to the usages of the house, derogatory to the dignity of the house and inconsistent with the standards which parliament is entitled to expect from its members.
The House of Commons has concerned itself with the conduct of a member outside of the house from time to time; for example, where a member used his public office for private gain, has compromised his independence by taking money, or has been found guilty of some scandalous crime. It is provided by law

the Senate and House of Commons Act, R.S.C. 147, s. 1-in the section dealing with the independence of parliament that no member shall hold any office of emolument under the crown nor enter into any contract with the government of Canada for which any public money of Canada is to be paid on pain of forfeiting his seat.
On the other hand, it is clear that many acts which might offend against the law or the moral sense of the community do not involve a member's capacity to serve the people who have chosen him as their representative nor are they contrary to the usage nor derogatory to the dignity of the House of Commons. Members of the House of Commons, like all other citizens, have the right to be regarded as innocent until they are found guilty, and like other citizens they must be charged before they are obliged to stand trial in the courts. Parliament is a court with respect to its own privileges and dignity and the privileges of its members. The question arises whether the house, in the exercise of its judicial functions with respect to the conduct of any of its members, should deprive such member of any of the safeguards and privileges which every man enjoys in any court of the land.
It has been strongly urged by some members that the house should not set in motion its power to try and to judge the conduct of a member unless such member is charged with a specific offence. It is urged further that not only must he be charged, but that he must be charged by a member of the House of Commons standing in his place.
In my view, simple justice requires that no hon. member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the house or a committee until he has been charged with an offence. Must this charge be made by another hon. member on his responsibility? The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) raised this same issue in the question which he put to me in the following words, as reported in Hansard at page 4839:
If this motion is ruled out of order, does it mean that no question of privilege can be raised in this house for submission to a committee which

arises out of allegations, direct or implied, made against a member of this house outside the house by a judgment of a court or in some other way, unless a member associates himself with those allegations to the point where he has himself to lay a charge against another hon. member?
To say yes to this question would be to overlook precedents in which inquiries have been undertaken on the basis of charges implied from documents. Examples are the case of Jean Baptiste Daoust, reported in the Journals of the House of Commons for 1876 at pages 1456 to 1460 where a reference to the committee on privileges and elections was ordered after reading entries in the Journals for 1866. These entries contained court records relating to the conviction of a Mr. Daoust for forgery. Mr. Daoust, the member, admitted that he was the man in the case and the house referred the matter to the committee.
Another is the Schell case in 1903, as reported in Hansard at pages 4959 and 5416, where the charge of contracting with the crown was implied from the report of the Auditor General tabled in the house and the payment of a small sum of $5.50 was admitted by Mr. Schell.
On the authorities it appears to be open to an hon. member to confront the house with charges against another member implicit in documents in the possession of the house, but in my view the charge must be there.
In the case before us no hon. member has taken the responsibility of making a specific charge against the hon. member for Peel. At page 4829 of Hansard the hon. member for Essex East says of the Leader of the Opposition, in whose name the motion stands:
He made no charges, that is true. That is his continuous answer to the Prime Minister who repeats, "Make charges". The Leader of the Opposition said, "We have no charges to make".
If there is a charge, then, which the hon. member for Peel should be called upon to meet it has to be implied from the reasons for judgment already referred to. Did the learned judge in commenting on the evidence say or imply that the member for Peel had been guilty of a criminal offence, perjury for example? Certainly not; and if he had it would have been his responsibility to bring the matter to the attention of the crown for prosecution. Did he intend or imply that the hon. member's conduct was an offence against the independence or dignity of the House of Commons, about which as a former member of that house he would be cognizant and alert? He does not say so. There is no direct charge of this kind in the judge's observations about the hon. member for Peel, nor has any member of this house taken the responsibility himself of saying that such

a charge must be implied from such observations, or of saying what the charge is. Instead, the supporters of the motion say in effect, "Let the committee see if there is anything of this kind with which the member could be charged".
It is true that the judge is critical of the conduct of the hon. member for Peel for influencing the appraiser, Mr. Clare; but his criticism falls more on Mr. Clare, whose professional duty it was to make a fair appraisal, for allowing himself to be influenced. He makes observations, too, about the hon. member's negotiations with the Minister of Transport.
If these observations or "affirmations", as they are styled in the notice of motion, are taken as fact and the worst construction is put on them, it would appear that the hon. member for Peel on behalf of his constituents unsuccessfully attempted to get more generous compensation for them from public funds for the lands which the crown had expropriated than they were warranted in receiving.
This summary does not do justice either way, but the judge's observations are more fully set out in the motion for all to read. If the learned judge, who as I have said had experience of parliament, felt that the conduct of the hon. member for Peel was contrary to the usages and dignity of parliament, would he not have said so?
Two important facts which appear from the judgment are, first, that the hon. member did not stand to gain or profit for himself by anything he did. On the contrary, the learned judge observed that his interest was only political. Second, no public funds were improperly paid out. The amount to be paid was determined by due process of law, in fact by the judge himself, and that is what the judgment was about.
However, the absence of formulation of a charge by the judge or by any member of the house does not absolve me from the responsibility of considering whether the reasons for judgment on their face imply conduct on the part of the hon. member which was contrary to the independence and dignity of the House of Commons of which he is a member; conduct, in other words, which was a breach of its privileges. No close precedent was cited and I have been unable to find any. The privileges of the house are stated in general terms in May, sixteenth edition, pages 42 and 43, as follows:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each house collectively as a constituent part of the high court of parliament, and by members of each house individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other 66968-9-313
Business of the House
bodies or individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law. The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers." They are enjoyed by individual members, because the house cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members; and by each house for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.
When any of these rights and immunities, both of the members, individually, and of the assembly in its collective capacity, which are known by the general name of privileges, are disregarded or attacked by any individual or authority, the offence is called a breach of privilege, and is punishable under the law of parliament. Each house also claims the right to punish-
And so on. I think I need not read more because the nature of privilege is generally understood. Examples of the sort of conduct which amount to a breach of privilege or which disqualify a member are the taking of an office of profit, as I have said; entering into contracts with the government which involve a payment or advantage to the member, in both of which cases there are elements of personal gain; conviction of treason or other felonious crimes.
The hon. member's conduct was not of that order. It may have been immature, as one hon. member characterized it, but putting the worst construction on it I do not find that it was the sort of conduct which the house has punished in the past. If there is some doubt in the matter I am clear that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the unaccused.
I should feel happier if this decision could be made by the house, but there seems to be no means by which that can be done except by the usual process of appeal from the ruling which I am now making.
In finding that a question of the privileges of the house is not prima facie involved in this motion, I am making a procedural decision the effect of which will not prevent the further discussion by the house of the matters in issue. The effect is to refuse precedence to this discussion but not to prevent it. No barrier is raised to the presentation of this matter under different circumstances on another occasion. For example, the subject matter could be brought before the house as an amendment to the next motion to go into supply. I should add, too, that the debate on the point of order on Wednesday and the discussion of the same matter on the estimates of the Minister of Transport were broad, and that there would be little left to be said if the motion itself were to be debated this morning.
Therefore the notice of motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition will

Division
be removed from routine proceedings on the order paper and dealt with under paragraph 4 of standing order 15.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of what we on this side consider to be the unprecedented character of your ruling, and in view of the fact that if this motion had been moved by the member concerning whom the affirmations had been made it would have been accepted without question as a matter of privilege, we have no alternative on this side, with very great respect, but to appeal your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question is an appeal to the house from a decision of the Chair as follows:
"That the notice of motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition does not involve a prima facie case of a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons on the part of the hon. member for Peel, and that such notice is to be removed from routine proceedings on the order paper and dealt with under paragraph 4 of standing order 15.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman asks me to overrule a decision of the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I call to your attention the fact that there was no such decision of the house that deals with this matter. The motion is under another standing order, and my question is a perfectly proper one.


John George Diefenbaker: My answer still stands.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: Hon. gentlemen appealed against the ruling of the Speaker, and the decision of the house is that this motion shall follow the order of business that was determined as a result of the ruling.
[Later:!


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to make further reference to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. May I say this; that I always try to be most helpful-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -and I am now going to give him the opportunity to discuss this case if he desires to follow it through.
While it had been arranged-and it is always subject to change-that the supply motion should not come up on Monday, you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that this matter could be reviewed in detail on a supply motion. I now give the Leader of the Opposition the offer that if he desires we will change the order of business on Monday in order to enable him and those associated with him to do what has been suggested might be possible, namely to bring this question up on a motion for supply.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Once the Prime Minister refused to suspend the business of the house to discuss this question, I was about to ask the leader of the house if he would arrange the order of business so as to take a supply motion on Monday. I gather that the Prime Minister is agreeable to that course, and I welcome the opportunity which has been given to us.



EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the first reading of
66968-9-313J
Inquiries of the Ministry Bill No. S-22 (from the Senate) to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the fact the seafarers' international union has been suspended from membership in the Canadian Labour Congress; and in view of the fact that the petition for Canadian citizenship of Harold Chamberlain Banks, the union's vice president, was rejected by the president of a citizenship court because the court considered him an undesirable character; and in view of Canadian public opinion and in the interests of the Canadian labour movement and the welfare of the Canadian people generally, would the government now consider the time appropriate to deport this undesirable alien?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hal Banks has Canadian domicile. There are no provisions or regulations under the present act by which deportation could be ordered.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the obvious sentiment of the members expressed on all sides of this house at the conclusion of my question, does the minister not think this parliament expects the government of Canada to speak up for Canada on this question?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, as the minister of this department I think it is my duty to observe the law.
[Later:!


Mr. W. C. Henderson (Cariboo):: I heartily concur, regarding this Banks case, with the hon. member for Kootenay East. It is time for the government to deport this man.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless the hon. member is about to move a motion of privilege, I would remind him that he cannot make a speech at this time. If he wishes to ask a supplementary question he will be in order.


Walter Clarence Henderson: Then I should like the minister of immigration to tell us why this man cannot be deported. He is just a gangster.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is not in the habit of repeating herself.
4934	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation) :



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (SI. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the following question of the Minister of Transport:
Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Transport or, in his absence, the Acting Minister of Transport. He might take this question as notice. In view of the dispute between pilots of the Mont-real-Kingston district and the shipping federation, why has not the minister had the pilotage dues approved by the governor in council as required by the Canada Shipping Act? Will the minister see that they are approved without delay?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.
Would the acting minister kindly answer that question; it is a most urgent one, particularly in view of the circumstances, of which he is no doubt aware? Moreover, would the acting minister inform the house of the latest developments in this connection?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this second question as notice. With regard to the first question, the Minister of Transport will reply personally.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question? Is the acting minister aware of the news report carried in the morning papers, particularly in the Gazette, to the effect that the only thing needed for a settlement of this matter is a written statement from the Minister of Transport or his deputy minister?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have not read that particular item, but I feel that the house can have full confidence in the Minister of Transport.
If settlement of this matter merely requires putting something down in writing, as the hon. member for St. Denis has indicated, the Minister of Transport is certainly able to do so.


Azellus Denis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the acting minister not realize that unless this dispute is settled by 6 o'clock tonight, meetings will be held and there is a possibility that no settlement will be reached in time for the arrival of Her Majesty the Queen?
IMr. Speaker.]

(Text):



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the statement he made yesterday concerning the construction of a proposed atomic energy power plant. My question is related to one sentence in the statement referred to, the sentence on page 4862 of Hansard for June 18, which reads:
In addition to substantial support in the design of this CANDU station, Ontario hydro will provide a site, co-operate in its construction, and operate it as a unit in its power distribution system.
My question is, will the choosing of this site be left directly to the Ontario hydro, or will the federal government be consulted?


Gordon Minto Churchill: In answer to this question may I say that there will be consultations among all the parties concerned, Ontario hydro, the government of Ontario, the federal government, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and so on.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: A supplementary question. Since the federal government will be taking part in the choosing of a site, will the minister assure the house that the district known as the Bruce peninsula will be looked at, owing to the fact that it has the proper rock foundations which are necessary for such construction, and also an unlimited supply of clear blue water?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the hon. member has completed his advertisement, but if every hon. member took the same privilege before orders of the day it would take some time.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: May I be
permitted to direct a question to the Postmaster General. According to a report in the Montreal Gazette of June 16, a mail robbery has been solved, and the subtitle is "Gift to Girl Friend Results in Jail Term". May I inquire from the Postmaster General if the R.C.M.P. had been called to solve that robbery?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: I am not aware, Mr. Speaker, that the R.C.M.P. is associated with anyone's girl friend.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the statement by Robert C. Berry, vice president and treasurer of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to the annual convention of the national federation of financial analysts societies to the effect that "looking farther ahead into 1961 it will be necessary for Trans-Canada to seriously consider acquiring the crown section of the pipe line late in that year", would the minister inform the house if the government has given any consideration to operating this section of the line under public ownership?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Boivin (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State, and I regret having failed to give him notice of it.
There has come to us a copy of the booklet entitled Royal Tour of Canada 1959, and I find that corrections were made on page 2 and that the name of the printer is not shown. Would it be possible to know who printed the English edition?


Hon. Henri Courtemanche (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I believe, although I am not positive, that it was the queen's printer.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Could the hon. Secretary of State obtain this information and relay it to the house?


Henri Courtemanche: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. Yesterday, in the course of my speech, and as recorded on page 4878 of Hansard, I quoted from an article by the parliamentary correspondent of Le Devoir about Canada's economic activity, as follows:
At the present rate of Canadian recovery, we can hardly hope to be back to normal until 1968.
Supply-Justice
Now, Mr. Speaker, I was informed this morning-and I later ascertained from the original text of the parliamentary correspondent-that a typographical error had been made in the text, which should read as follows:
-until 1961-
Instead of:
-1968.
(Text):



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Transport, and ask him whether it is true that the landing fees for tourist aircraft at Gander have been increased. If this has been done in order to discourage congestion, would the department give consideration to removing that increase?


Léon Balcer: I will make inquiries and answer on Monday.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour) moved: the third reading of Bill No. C-43, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division, and bill read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE A-Department-
149.	Departmental administration including annual contribution of $200 to the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada, $741,825.
Mr. Maloney:: Mr. Chairman, when the debate on this item was adjourned last night I had put forward the suggestion that the government might give some study to the possibility of intervening at the federal level in the probation field. Probation is something of which I have always urged a much wider and much more liberal use consistent, necessarily, with the establishment of adequate probation facilities in the various provinces.
The Fauteux committee members in their report stressed that in a modern correctional

Supply-J ustice
system there was no place for punishment which is based on nothing more than retribution. They urged too that an offender's rehabilitation should, wherever possible, be effected without placing upon him the stigma of imprisonment. The members of this committee expressed the view that adult probation was the area of correction in Canada where the most significant advance is required to be made. It is my firm belief that if we are to make our prisons centres of reformation, places in which law violators can be reclaimed as useful members of society, a very serious reduction in the prison population has to be brought about.
In Great Britain with its much larger population only 34,000 individuals were given prison terms in 1953. In the same year in Canada, with its much smaller population, 98,000 persons received prison terms. I have no doubt that more recent figures would show a contrast that would be equally startling.
In our penitentiaries in Canada today we have a population of about 6,000 inmates, and in our provincial prisons and institutions a population of approximately 11,000. Over 60 per cent of those sent to prison in Canada each year are sent for the purpose of serving terms of imprisonment for 90 days or less. According to our chief probation officer in the province of Ontario, Mr. Dan Coghlan, probation achieved success in not less than 70 per cent of the cases in our province, and that estimate is a deliberately conservative one. Imprisonment has failed because in 75 per cent of the cases of those admitted to federal penitentiaries and in 65 to 70 per cent of the cases of those admitted to provincial institutions these persons had been incarcerated before. Wherever probation has been experimented with very satisfactory results have been achieved.
In England not so long ago, under the direction of the celebrated Dr. Radzinowicz, the Cambridge department of criminal science conducted a survey of 4,000 adult offenders who had been released from probation a full three years. The group of 4,000 consisted of first, second and multiple offenders. The result was that in the over-all picture 71 per cent were still living as law-abiding citizens. Actually in the case of the first offenders the percentage was 88 per cent.
One of the main difficulties in Canada in the field of probation is the lack of uniformity in the establishment of probation facilities in the various provinces. This is largely due to a lack of funds on the part of some of the provinces, and I suppose it is partly due to a lack of interest, perhaps an apathy or indifference, on the part of the public.

I should like our government to give some thought to the possibility of easing the financial burden on the provinces either by direct grants or-and this might be the more orderly solution-by the assumption on a national basis of full responsibility in the field of probation, as the government has already done in the field of parole. So closely related are the two areas of probation and parole that it occurs to me the machinery of our national board of parole, which is now really just beginning to function, could be utilized in the event of the assumption by the federal authority of full responsibility in this field.
One hesitates to suggest to a government that is already required to spend so much money in the public interest that it should spend further sums, but in my opinion there would be a long term economy involved in the immediate expenditure of whatever sums are needed to make our probation system more uniform.
In Ontario, where the number released annually on probation has increased from about 2,500 in 1952 to about 7,000 in 1958, the figures are very startling. The total number under probation supervision in Ontario in 1958 was 12,599. Of this figure the number who were actually placed on probation during the year 1958 was 7,107. But it is the economic benefits that are collateral to this that I find so impressive.
The total amount of restitution collected from probationers following criminal convictions in Ontario in the year 1958 was $71,295. The total amount of support money collected for deserted wives and children from offenders who were released on probation-people who otherwise might have been the subject of welfare benefits-was $2,396,525.64. Perhaps the most striking figure of all is represented by the total amount of earnings of adult probationers in Ontario in 1958. Their earnings were in the vicinity of $15 million.
In the light of these figures I think it worth while to contrast the cost of probation to the state and the cost of imprisonment.
The cost of probation per individual per year in Ontario is roughly estimated to be in the vicinity of $250. Some might give a lesser figure than that, but I am sure a lesser figure would fail to make allowance for some of the incidental expenditures that are involved in maintaining a proper probation system. It is roughly estimated, then, to be in the neighbourhood of $250. The cost of keeping an offender in prison, on the other hand, will range from between $1,500 to $2,500, depending upon the institution and upon other factors. If each of the 7,000 Ontario

probationers in 1958 had gone to prison the cost to the taxpayer would have been several millions of dollars, and the other collateral financial benefits to which I referred would not have been realized at all.
The province of Ontario has taken the lead in this country in the field of probation, has made most remarkable advances and has expanded its system to a marked degree. The province of British Columbia ranks second in terms of progress in this field. In 1942 British Columbia had one adult probation officer and one office, which I believe was located in Vancouver. Today that province has a probation personnel of about 35 and branch offices that number about 17. The results in both British Columbia and Ontario have been satisfactory and gratifying. I therefore repeat what I said at the outset. With a view to bringing about the establishment of uniformity in the probation system I recommend that our government consider the possibility of some form of intervention in this field.
There is one other matter I wish to briefly mention that is not related to probation but deals with another point altogether. This is a matter which I suggest be considered in the future by way of amendment to the Criminal Code. The change I would suggest is a change in the present requirement of the law that juries in criminal cases must be unanimous before rendering a verdict of either guilty or not guilty. After a long experience in the field and following some particularly trying experiences in criminal cases that resulted in disagreements-or, as the layman knows them, in "hung" juries-and I think I speak the minds of a number of my colleagues at the bar-I suggest that the Criminal Code be amended to provide that a majority verdict should be permitted to bring about an acquittal, though I firmly believe that if this were done the present requirement of unanimity in respect to conviction or a verdict of guilty should be retained.
My reason for taking that position is this. Under our laws, as hon. members well know, guilt cannot be proved except by evidence that establishes it beyond reasonable doubt. It is my belief that if the majority of jurors, particularly a substantial majority, are in doubt we cannot help but believe a reasonable doubt exists. On the other hand, where one juror retains a doubt it is my opinion that guilt could not then be deemed to have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Sir James Stephen, a great English authority in the field of criminal jurisprudence, advocated the change years ago that I today recommend.
By way of illustration I want to show you the hardship that the present law in respect
Supply-J ustice
to unanimity so often works. Some of the hon. members, especially those from the Toronto area, will have read in the last few weeks about the famous Aconic trial, a prosecution that began, I think, early last fall, a trial that lasted six weeks, which resulted in a disagreement in which the majority of the jurors wished to give a verdict of acquittal. On the retrial the same result occurred after a four-week trial, when the jurors were 11 to 1 in favour of an acquittal, and one juror succeeded in preventing a verdict of not guilty from being rendered. A case of that sort emphasizes the enormous cost to the taxpayer of a prosecution of that kind and, of course, the very considerable cost and expense to the accused.
I can recall so well a case just a few months ago in which I was involved, involving a young boy of 20 or 21 who came from an excellent home. He had a fine past record, no record of any previous criminal conviction. He was charged with a rather trivial theft. He came before a jury and the jury retired to consider their verdict. In this case the proceedings took place in a rural community where court room facilities are such that the jury room is not as sound proof as in some of the urban areas. The spectators in the court room could not help being able to hear what was going on in the confines of the jury room.
These jurors were, as they ultimately disclosed, 11 to 1 in favour of acquitting this young boy who put forward a perfectly credible, valid defence; but one juror took the position that he would sit there-and I still remember him saying it-as he had often done at board meetings he had attended- until three in the morning before he would give in. He went on to say that if this young boy were acquitted other city youth would come up to the country in the summer time and vandalize their cottages. They were totally irrelevant considerations and obviously were not entitled to any weight, particularly in view of the strong feeling among all the other jurors in favour of an acquittal.
In both the cases I have cited, the Aconic case and the case of the young boy in which I personnally was involved as counsel, the Attorney General of Ontario, on an application to him, did what he of course had the power to do, namely direct a stay of proceedings in both indictments. These are only two illustrations of how the requirement about unanimity works hardship, and hon. members could be given many more.
I thank hon. members for the attention they have given my remarks. I commend them to the minister and to the government for such consideration as they feel they deserve.

Supply-Justice


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two replies that I think I should give before the item carries, since it is the first item of the main estimates of the department. I would like to refer immediately to what has been said by the hon. member for Park-dale, and to thank him for the constructive suggestions which, in keeping with his knowledge and experience in this whole field, we have come to expect from him.
With regard to the question of probation, I think the hon. member and the committee also will be glad to know that at the time of the conference with the provinces in October of last year, when we disclosed the implementation of the Fauteux report and other matters in connection therewith, there was some consideration given to this question of the relationship between the federal parole service and the provincial probation service. Following that conference and when we set up the correctional planning committee, it was one of the subjects which they were instructed to examine and to discuss with the provinces in detail, particularly the ways in which there might be more effective integration of the services provided by the two governments in these two fields.
The hon. member will, of course, appreciate that we cannot act unilaterally here because, if I appreciate the situation correctly, probation officers are in general, at any rate, officers of the court and as such they are provincial officers; but there is a close relationship between the functions of a probation officer and the functions of the parole officers, and close relationship between the needs and situations. Although they are not exactly parallel, there is some relationship between the needs and situations of those who are out on probation after being convicted and those who are out on parole after serving a portion of their sentences, and other areas in which we believe we can usefully co-operate with the provinces, such as in the stimulation of the facilities for training of these officers.
This will require a program of training parole officers. It may well be that the same program could be of use in the training of probation officers, so that this is a matter to which we are giving attention. But, of course, the actual steps we can take will depend upon the extent to which effective agreement may be reached with the provinces.
With regard to the other suggestion about unanimity in juries before there shall be a finding, there is a good deal to be considered in what the hon. member says; but on the other hand I would think there is also a good deal to be said for retaining the principle that a jury must be unanimous before it makes a finding of either guilty or not

guilty. There is much to be said both ways. So far the arguments in favour of the retention of the present system seem to have outweighed those in favour of a change, but the observations of the hon. member will be closely studied.
There is some information I have here that I should perhaps just put on the record before one o'clock. On an earlier occasion, when the bill to amend the Judges Act was being discussed, the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate asked me in effect whether the time which elapsed between the death of the former chief justice and the appointment of the new chief justice of Newfoundland was a record in that respect. I undertook to get what information I could and give it to the hon. gentleman on my estimates. I find the record established clearly that in comparison with what has taken place on some other occasions, the appointment of the new chief justice of Newfoundland was actually made with some considerable dispatch.
Here are some records of the time lag between the demise in office of one chief justice of a province and the appointment of another. There was one year, five months and seven days in the case of J. B. M. Baxter, chief justice of New Brunswick, who died on December 27, 1946, and was succeeded by C. D. Richards on June 3, 1948. The next one; one year, three months, nine days; Alexander Morris, chief justice of Manitoba, was appointed lieutenant governor of Manitoba on December 2, 1872, succeeded by E. B. Wood, March 11, 1874; eight months, 12 days, Sir Matthew B. Beglie, chief justice of British Columbia, died June 11, 1894, succeeded by Theodore Davie, February 23, 1895.
Perhaps I should give the longer ones. Here is the next, and it has to do with chief justices of trial courts; four years, eight months, 18 days, J. H. Barry-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was the chief justices of the provinces I was interested in.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have just given the chief justices of the provinces. I will give these others, too, if the hon. member wishes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was only the chief justices of the provinces that I asked for. I do not mind having the others, too. It is interesting historically.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know whether the committee wishes to take the time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be quite happy- I am sure the committee would-if the minister would put the cases on Hansard. They are interesting historically.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I had better read out the list of provincial chief justices. The next one is seven months, 14 days; Sir R. L. Weatherbe, chief justice of the supreme court of Nova Scotia, retired March 19, 1907, succeeded by C. J. Townshend, November 2, 1907; five months, 23 days, D. A. McDonald, chief justice of British Columbia, died April 10, 1944, succeeded by Gordon McGregor Sloan, October 3, 1944; five months, sixteen days, Theodore Davie, chief justice of British Columbia, died March 7, 1898, succeeded by A. J McColl, August 23, 1898.
With respect to the chief justices of the trial courts the periods have run as high as four years, eight months and eighteen days, and I have on record here one of five months and two days. There are four cases in between those two periods.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one other question I asked the minister about the Judges Act which he might answer now, and that was whether there was any provision for payment of the salary in case of the proclamation of the act of Newfoundland. If the minister has not the information now it can be given later. I do not want to hold up the item for that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand that a letter from the attorney general of Newfoundland has just been received this morning. We have not had time to study it, but it does refer to the situation and under those circumstances I would prefer not to reply until I have had a chance to look at the correspondence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister does not remember my question. Is there any provision in the existing law for the payment of the salary? If the minister would like to answer that on another item that will be all right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can answer it right now. No, there is not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
150.	Parole Act administration, including $60,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies as may be approved by treasury board, $344,531.
Mr. Roberge:: Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hochelaga put some questions to the minister. I wonder if the minister is able to answer them now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I recall the questions they were, first, whether or not a woman
Supply-Justice
would be appointed to the parole board; second, how many women are in the prisons of Canada; and third, whether there is any differentiation in treatment between men and women in federal prisons?
With regard to the first question, I may say it is true we have had a number of representations to the effect that a woman should be appointed to the parole board. As my hon. friend is aware, the National Parole Act does authorize five members for the board. Up to the present time we have appointed four members to the board, leaving one vacancy.
It is not an easy problem to decide who should be appointed to the vacancy, if and when an appointment should become desirable. The recommendations of the Fauteux committee indicated that in their opinion there should be several groups represented on the board, and not all of those groups are presently represented.
Amongst those groups not represented I could mention the women of Canada, exmembers of police forces of Canada and members of the clergy. In our efforts to achieve a representative board we have left this vacancy. We have two things to decide; first, whether a fifth member should be appointed, and if so from what group that member should come. I am not saying at the moment we are contemplating the appointment of a fifth member, because we want to see how the board will operate and we want to assess the experience of the board; then on the basis of that experience assess the question of whether or not a fifth member should be appointed and from what group that member should come. We have not at the present time, therefore, reached any decision on that point.
With regard to the number of women prisoners in the federal prison system, I am told that at the moment there are 98 women prisoners. This figure represents about the average number of women prisoners who have been in our system over the past years; that is to say, the female population of federal prisons represents less than 2 per cent of the total population.
With respect to their treatment, there is no differentiation except that they are confined in separate institutions. The general program of training and reformation, pre-release programs, all those aspects of the penitentiary program are the same in their application to female prisoners as they are with respect to male prisoners.


Gabriel Roberge: There is another matter that I believe the minister overlooked. At the very outset of the remarks made by the hon. member for Hochelaga he said-I am

Supply-Justice
reading now from the English translation of what my hon. friend said in French, and this is at page 4 of the English translation of Hansard of yesterday-
The parole board has now replaced the remission service.
It would be of general interest, I think, to make known the number of prisoners in this country for the various provinces, also how many of these prisoners' files have been studied by the new parole board and the result of that study.
Then the hon. member went on to say:
The committee would also be interested to hear from the minister how this parole board operates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the question
referred to by my hon. friend is one the answer to which must come from two sources, the penitentiary branch and the parole board. The question asks that we make known the number of prisoners in this country in the various provinces, and that is information I expect to obtain and supply to the committee when the penitentiary branch item is before the committee.
The other part of the question is, how many of these prisoners' files have been studied by the new parole board and the results of that study. I am told that something in the neighbourhood of 2,000 files have been studied, but the exact figure is not yet available. This figure will also be available at the time the penitentiary item is called.


Gabriel Roberge: At the same time, would
the minister advise the committee how many prisoners were pardoned and how many are on ticket of leave as a result of that study?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am told that the percentage is 32.6 per cent. In other words, of the files studied 32 per cent have been parolled. As the hon. member will recall I distinguish between parole and pardon. Pardon is a function of the executive. Of the files studied 32 per cent have been parolled since the parole board commenced its operation.


Gabriel Roberge: I note that this item asks for $60,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies as may be approved by treasury board. At page 217 I note that last year the amount was $50,000 and that this year the amount asked for from parliament is $60,000.
I have no quarrel with that increase because that would be for the benefit of the prisoners when they come out of the penitentiary or the prison, I suppose. What I should like to know is this, and I think it is a matter of public interest. It may be of assistance to the prisoners and their families to know what are the societies that are concerned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The list is quite lengthy. The Salvation Army national service-did my hon. friend ask for the amounts they received?


Gabriel Roberge: No. I should just like to have the names of the agencies so the public may be made aware of these societies.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Salvation Army national
service; John Howard society of Newfoundland, John Howard society of Nova Scotia; John Howard society of New Brunswick; Catholic rehabilitation service, Montreal; centre de service social de Trois-Rivieres; John Howard society of Quebec; service de rehabilitation sociale inc. Quebec; service social de Beauce; service social de l'enfance Chicoutimi; service social de Gaspe; service social de Hull; service social de Joliette; service social de Levis; service social de Megantic (Thetford Mines); service social de Nicolet; service social de Rimouski; service social de St. Hyacinthe; service social de St. Jean d'Iberville; service social de St. Jerome; service social de Valleyfield; societe d'orientation et rehabilitation sociale de Montreal; societe de rehabilitation de Sherbrooke; Catholic adjustment bureau, Toronto; the Elizabeth Fry society of Ontario; the John Howard society of Ontario; Catholic welfare bureau, Winnipeg; John Howard and Elizabeth Fry society of Manitoba; Manitoba welfare association, Winnipeg; John Howard society of Saskatchewan; John Howard society of Alberta; John Howard society of British Columbia; John Howard society of Vancouver island.
These various organizations received grants under this item in the last fiscal year totalling $50,000 and this year will receive grants totalling $60,000.


Gabriel Roberge: I said earlier that I did not want the amount received by each of them, but I could have the average amount received by each of them; or is that too complicated? I should be glad to be furnished with the information later on.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think it would be possible to give an average, because the awards by the branch are made on the basis of the case work done by the respective societies I have mentioned. It just would not be possible to give an average. I shall be glad to send over to the hon. gentleman, if he wishes it, a list showing the amounts paid in the last fiscal year.


Gabriel Roberge: Later on, when the minister is through, he could furnish that information. He could do that later on, not necessarily on the estimates. Later on I will be interested in receiving that information.


Edmund Davie Fulton: All right.


Gabriel Roberge: There is a service sociale in my own constituency of Megantic. I should like to know whether this service sociale is able to participate in that vote and receive

any award. I hope that as a result of this information they will make application, and I hope the application will be considered favourably.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Last year that society received a grant of $150 and I am assured that provided the society has handled case work this year, they will get a grant commensurate with the number of cases they have handled and increased in proportion to the total increase for this year over last year.


Gabriel Roberge: I want to apologize. Maybe I did not hear very well, but I did not think this service sociale was included in the list given by the minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. If I left it out, I am sorry. I have it on my list, service sociale de Megantic and Thetford Mines.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not sure that I understood what the minister said with respect to grants. Did the John Howard society receive grants in every province? I do not want my hon. friend to give the list over again. I think he said that on Vancouver island the John Howard society receives a grant. Is there any John Howard society for British Columbia as a whole?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, there is; it is included in the list. They have a separate John Howard society on Vancouver island, as they have in various other points in Canada. We made grants to the provincial organizations and to the local ones.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
151.	Administration, $218,599.
Mr. Aiken:: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice some questions relating to judges' salaries and retiring allowances. I see it generally comes under items 151 to 155. I trust that the Chairman will permit me to discuss these items together, as they are so similar in nature. I should like to preface my questions with a few remarks.
Canada has always had and now has a judiciary of which we have been extremely proud. The principles of independence from outside influence and the security of office during good behaviour has been one of the things that have kept the judicial system in Canada in good standing. In order to maintain these high standards it is necessary to draw from the legal profession-


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order and I want your ruling on it. I wonder whether it is in order to discuss judges' salaries on a statutory item.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I was not proposing to discuss a statutory item. I was discussing, as I thought, items 151, 152, 153, 154 and 155
Supply-Justice
which are administration items, under the increase of judges' salaries. I will admit that the salaries themselves are statutory. I was attempting to discuss the matter under the administration items, which are not statutory.


Mr. Drysdale:: Is that all right?


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sure the hon. member realizes that he cannot discuss statutory items.


Mr. Howard:: If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to say a word on a point of order.


Charles Edward Rea: Except on the administration item.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I recall getting into the same sort of discussion on the estimates of the Department of Public Works, when this same question was raised not on the administration item but on the statutory item in connection with a vote which related to substantially the same thing. I do not recall the date right now but it was during last session, when this same point of order was raised as to whether I could inquire with respect to a statutory item contained in the estimates while the particular vote number that was connected with it was under discussion. The ruling at that time was that it was quite in order to do so.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I was saying that in order to maintain the high standard which the Canadian people have come to expect, we do have to choose from the legal profession of Canada those people who are best qualified to give good service to the country. There have been cases of barristers who have been known to refuse judicial appointments because of the monetary consideration involved. This applies both with regard to salaries and with regard to retirement allowances. It has not always been a case of paying these people what they are worth. In many cases judges must be drawn from members of the legal profession who are at the very peak of their careers. They have built up their practices to their highest extent, and incurred obligations and undertaken a standard of living which they naturally seek to maintain, and they should not be asked to lower their standards of living because of the acceptance of a judicial position.
Closely tied to this matter is the question of the judges' retiring allowances. I am told, for example, that the retiring allowance of a county court judge 37 years ago was $5,000. That was the allowance on his retirement after completing his service. And I understand that the allowance today is $5,333.33. I do not wish to discuss this question of salaries in

Supply-Justice
any detail, but I do feel that proper consideration should be given to it. After all, our judicial officers must be people who are well qualified and well considered, and they must be chosen from the top bracket of the legal profession in Canada.
I want to ask the minister two questions, and perhaps he could answer them together. First, has any consideration been given to a revision of the salaries and retiring allowances paid to judges? Second, what is the last date on which a revision was made? This inquiry is a general one, in that I refer to the judicial system from the supreme court down to the county court, and I should be very pleased if the minister could give the committee some information along the lines I have suggested.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The last date upon which there was a revision of judicial salaries and retiring allowances was 1955, in chapter 48 of the statutes of that year. This raised the level of the salaries of judges of all the courts in Canada. At that time, however, there was a provision written into the statute that the retiring allowances, which were set at two thirds of the salaries, would be paid in relation to the salaries in effect prior to the amendment, so that although the judges of all the courts in Canada received an increase in their salaries there was no increase in retirement allowances as a result of that bill.
This situation has given rise to a good deal of comment. I do not like to use extreme words in connection with the judiciary, but I think it is fair to say that the situation has been the subject of representations by members of the judiciary. That, I think, is quite proper. Members of the judiciary feel, they tell me, that if as the statutes have provided for many years they are entitled to retiring allowances at the rate of two-thirds of their salaries, they can see no reason why, when the salary had been raised, presumably in response to the general increase in the cost of living which affects judges as it affects everybody else, the retirement allowances should not be raised proportionately. They are unable to understand why, on the contrary, it should have been pegged at two-thirds of the salaries formerly in effect.
This question of salary and retirement allowance is one to which my department and I, personally, as minister, have been giving intensive consideration. We find that there are a number of anomalies, too far-reaching to be discussed in detail here, when we are after all dealing with salaries which are fixed by statute. But there are anomalies, and perhaps I could refer to some of them.
There is the question of whether or not judges should be allowed to accept remuneration for their services on various boards
and commissions, because it is an undoubted fact that in some cases certain judges receive substantial emoluments by way of remuneration for serving on such boards and commissions, thus adding substantially to their salaries, whereas in other areas judges who are consistently busy with their judicial duties are not able to accept such appointments or do not have occasion to accept such appointments to boards or commissions, and who therefore have no such increments to their salaries.
This situation is one which gives me great concern, and I have instituted in the department and in co-operation with the attorneys general of a number of provinces a study designed to enable us to arrive at a definite conclusion as to what are the facts and figures, and I hope that in the light of this study I will in due course be able to recommend to my colleague a sensible and perhaps substantial revision of the whole basis of judicial salaries and retirement allowances.
However, until I have received reports on this study I am afraid I am not able to indicate to my hon. friend or, indeed, to the bench, which I know is concerned about this matter, whether we are going to do anything about judicial salaries and retirement allowances at this session. This is a subject which I think should be studied by the bar association as a whole and, indeed, by the bench of Canada. There are some quite startling figures which emerge from a comparison of the situation of the bench in this country and in other countries with respect to this subject.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister, in replying to that question, has anticipated some observations I was about to make. The hon. gentlemen will recall that earlier in the session I asked him whether he had been accurately reported as to the use of judges on boards-I think it was both boards and commissions including, of course, conciliation boards in the province of Ontario. Chief Justice McRuer had at one time taken a strong position that there should be a limitation placed upon their participation in the work of these boards.
I forget the precise words the minister used which formed the basis of my interrogation at that time, but generally-and it was not, I think, an improper observation-the hon. gentleman said he felt there should be some limitation, at any rate, upon their functioning on such boards and commissions. I am sure he did not have in mind the use of county court judges on police commissions, though it is a fact that county court judges do derive income-or at least they do in communities with which I am familiar-for

such services. The minister has said he is now reviewing the question of the extent of the emoluments that are received by members of the judiciary from these various extrajudicial activities which are open to them in many provinces and, certainly, in large cities. But he did not expand-and indeed he was not asked to do so-on the question of their participation in a wide series of boards, commissions, administrative tribunals, administrative bodies and the like.
Recently a very competent judge in the province of Ontario was named by the government to head the civil service commission of Canada, and nothing I have to say is, of course, a reflection in any way on his competence for that particular assignment or in any way to be regarded as a criticism of that appointment-


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman will appreciate, of course, that that particular judge is resigning from the bench.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know he has resigned from the bench, but I did see somewhere in the press that he would be regarded as on leave. The minister shakes his head and indicates that that is incorrect.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is incorrect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think that is satisfactory. I am not saying there would not have been a precedent for that, but I think it is somewhat doubtful that a man should continue to be regarded as a judge and at the same time be afforded the opportunity of serving in a non-judicial capacity. However, the minister says this particular appointee is resigning from the bench and, for the term of his present appointment at any rate, will not be regarded as a judicial officer.
But I would appreciate it if the minister would say something, if he is in a position to do so, about his view as Minister of Justice with regard to the use of judges on these extrajudicial bodies. I know this is not a very easy decision to make, and I am not holding the minister to a precise answer. I know he is thinking about it. But when he does make his comment, or give final consideration to the matter, I know he will bear in mind that there are certain judges who have special qualifications for particular assignments, and many of those assignments cannot properly be discharged, I think, but for the participation of such individuals.
This only serves to illustrate, I suggest, that to every rule, unless it be a law, some exception should be provided. In any event, this is an important matter and one which interests lawyers generally. It interests the bar association and I am sure it interests the
Supply-Justice
membership of this committee, and I should be grateful to the minister if he would comment on the subject I have mentioned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect to the position of the learned judge who, as has been announced by the Prime Minister, will become chairman of the civil service commission on July 1, I should like to make it perfectly clear that he is resigning, and I will expect to receive shortly from him a formal letter of his resignation from the bench. He will carry into his position as chairman of the civil service commission all the qualities and qualifications which led to his appointment to the high court of Ontario, but he will not be continuing in that capacity. There will be a vacancy, to which another judge will be appointed.
With respect to the difficult but important question of the extent to which judges should be permitted or, indeed, should be called upon to serve in capacities which are not strictly judicial while at the same time continuing as members of the bench, I should like to make some comment and yet, at the same time, make it clear that my comments are to some extent not conclusive; that they reflect only, at this point, the result of some study I have given to the matter. I would hope not to see in the press, or elsewhere tomorrow statements that the Minister of Justice had decided this or that, because I have not reached that stage as yet.
But I am concerned about this question, and it will come as no surprise to the hon. member for Essex East that this should be so, because the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet, as well as myself, when we were members of the opposition did express concern about what was regarded as the increasing and dangerous extent to which judges were being called upon to fill appointments to boards and commissions which took them into fields which were not strictly judicial and which, indeed, on occasion took them into fields where the results of their inquiries were bound to involve them, if not personally then as a result of their reports, in political controversy. We have felt, and we still feel, that this was a trend which was dangerous and one which should be halted, if not reversed.
Since assuming office as Minister of Justice I have, as I have already said, been engaged in a study concerning the extent to which judges are being called upon to serve in these various extrajudicial capacities, and I find that apart from what I might call the occasional appointment to a royal commission or something of that nature, which appointments are also of concern, there are a number of

Supply-Justice
what are accepted as almost standard or routine appointments of judges-and this applies particularly at county and district court levels-as chairmen of boards and commissions. These boards and commissions may be standing bodies set up under provincial legislation, or extemporaneous boards of conciliation and arbitration.
The hon. gentleman has mentioned some of these bodies. He also mentioned police commissions. I think there is a very real question as to whether a county court judge should serve as chairman of a police commission. I raise that question on the basis that the county court judge is going to be called upon on a number of occasions to try cases in which the charge has been laid by members of the police force appointed by the commission of which he is chairman. I go no further than that at the present time, but I certainly think that raises a serious question.
Then there are other types of boards and commissions, and I have in mind particularly conciliation and arbitration boards in industrial disputes. I recognize fully that in some provinces particularly-and I do not pick out any one province-it has become a standard practice for judges, particularly from county or district courts, to be named as chairmen of these boards.
As I have said, I have evidence that there are some cases in which judges find almost their major occupation as chairmen of these boards, so they are in receipt of their full salaries as judges yet are in receipt of very considerable extra emoluments which they derive by way of their temporary appointments as chairmen of these boards; whereas, as I say, in other cases where perhaps the full time of the judge is involved in his judicial duties, the time or the occasion is not available for such appointments, and this creates a disparity between the incomes of judges of our courts.
There is another consideration to which I am giving study, and that is this. I recognize that in those provinces where such appointments to boards of arbitration or conciliation have become almost an accepted practice it would be a disruption of labour conciliation procedures to lay down a sudden edict or ukase that this practice should cease because, I am informed, there would be areas in which there would then suddenly be no available machinery for the settlement of industrial disputes. However strongly I may feel as Minister of Justice about the desirability or otherwise of judges serving in this capacity, I cannot ignore the fact that this is an accepted practice and that therefore I have to approach the problem steadily and on a sound common sense basis.

However, having sounded these notes of caution which I realize I must apply in my study of this problem I do say that I think it is extremely undesirable, and a contradiction in principle, that a judge who is appointed as a member of the judiciary on the basis that he is impartial as between litigants should be called upon to perform a function which is not one of adjudging as between parties but is a function of conciliation as between parties; and here I draw particularly a distinction between a board of arbitration and a board of conciliation. In a board of arbitration I think it may well be arguable that a judge is performing at least a semijudicial function. He hears the argument advanced by both sides and he arbitrates as between them, but in a board of conciliation I think the situation is entirely different. In those boards where the function of the conciliator is to act as an intermediary between the parties I And it difficult to appreciate that there is there any semblance of the judicial function, and I therefore question very closely, and have been led to question by the course of my studies, whether it is desirable that judges should continue to act as chairmen of boards of conciliation.
Having said that, I come back to the point I made at the beginning. I recognize that if I or anybody else, or the government as a whole, is to do anything about the situation we first have to reach conclusions and then we have to approach the matter on a common sense and realistic basis and so adjust our program that our conclusions are not carried into effect in such a manner that they will disrupt the whole procedure set up for the settlement of labour disputes. It is in that spirit that we are approaching a study of the program. Perhaps I should not go any farther than that at this time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has the minister given consideration to this? While it resides with the federal authority to make most judicial appointments outside of the magistracy and some judges of a certain character and status in some provinces, under the constitution are the provinces not given authority in the matter of the constitution of the courts?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Quite so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would this decision in the final analysis not really involve a decision to be made by the provincial rather than the federal authority?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think there is an area in
which the decision when arrived at must be a joint decision. There is, I believe, constitutional authority bestowed upon the federal government to limit the occupations and

the salaries of judges appointed by that authority. I also recognize that judges so appointed are officers or judges of the provincial courts.
I have in correspondence with at least one of the attorneys general indicated an approach to this matter which I think is worth following up. That we should try to reach agreement as to the type of function which, although a function which is not strictly judicial and not a part of his office as a member of the court as such, is none the less an appropriate function to call upon a judge to perform. We might reach agreement upon a basis something like this; that a quasi-judicial function, such as the function of arbitration, might be agreed to be desirable, but that those and other quasijudicial functions which it is appropriate for judges to be called upon to perform should be recognized and defined by some provincial legislation. If the provincial legislature says that it becomes a function and a duty of a judge appointed to a provincial court to perform certain functions of the nature of a chairman of a board of arbitration, or such other function as the legislature of a province deliberately assigns to judges, then I think there would be no question, and I certainly would not be inclined to raise any question that, it is the right of the provincial legislature so to prescribe. What I would want to avoid is what we might call the assignment of temporary or casual functions to judges which are really not in any way of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature.
So the approach I have suggested in this correspondence is that we should study this in conjunction with the provinces and that we should agree upon the nature of the duties which judges may be called upon to perform, and that then those duties should be incorporated in a statute so there can be no question of the right of a province to call upon a judge to perform those functions which are authorized by the provincial legislature, and no possibility of the federal authority raising any question when a judge is called upon so to perform that function.


Mr. Crestohl:: The minister has made a very sound statement on this principle which is certainly very vital, namely that of assigning functions to judges which are not strictly judicial. But we must recall the statement made by the hon. member who first raised this question. He felt that perhaps the stipends of judges were not what they should be. The minister then indicated that to some extent the stipend was augmented by the occasional opportunity which a judge has of presiding over a commission of some kind, for which he receives extra pay.
Supply-Justice
This would indicate that the basic pay of a judge requires some improvement. Therefore, whether he must seek it or whether it is gratefully accepted by him when he is named to head a commission and therefore augments his income, it is a serious matter to that judge. Whether he seeks the appointment or, as I have said, whether he is grateful for it, it becomes almost a necessity to him. Therefore I should like the minister to tell us whether there is some method, perhaps a rotating method or some system, by which the appointment of judges to head these commissions could be spread around.
I realize it is a difficult thing to do, because there are special qualifications for each particular appointment that a judge receives to sit as the head of a commission of some kind. Is there some special rotation system or some special consideration given when these appointments are made so there might be a wider spread amongst the judges who could look forward to their stipends being augmented?
I realize that this is a very difficult question to deal with. At the same time, I am sure the minister will realize that a situation exists under which some judges may never have an opportunity to augment their basic salary. I would like the minister to consider it. From his remarks I gather that the matter is receiving some very serious study by him. In order to eliminate some anxiety of some judges, or disappointments when they do not receive this extra income, perhaps the basic stipend should be such that they would not anxiously look forward to means of earning additional income.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With the approach of the hon. member, particularly as he has just summarized it in his last statement, I entirely agree. I think it is an unfortunate matter if in fact judges are compelled to look to outside appointments, outside functions, outside duties, to supplement their incomes. I have already indicated that I think it is unfortunate, and in the study we are making I recognize that if we were eventually to arrive at a situation whereby such outside appointments would be discouraged or reduced to a minimum, then certainly in my view it would be necessary to make a substantial adjustment in the rates of judicial salaries as authorized and paid by the federal authority.
But you have here the question of the duties which the provinces feel they are entitled to call upon judges to perform and for which from time to time they pay them extra remuneration. I am not trying to magnify the size of my own job, but I simply say it is a very large task because there have crept into and almost been built into the judicial set-up in this country many of these

Supply-Justice
practices which have become accepted, and it is not easy to change them. I am glad to be able to say that at the last annual convention of the Canadian Bar Association in Toronto a committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Mr. Arthur Kelly-


Paul Joseph James Martin: He is the president.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry-at the urging of Mr. Arthur Kelly, then president, to study the whole question of the organization, function and remuneration of the judiciary. The committee is under the chairmanship of Mr. Arthur Pattillo. The committee is discussing this matter with the provinces and with myself and my department and I hope that from this study, in addition to the studies which we of the department are making, we shall eventually be able to emerge with a sensible program for revision of the Judges Act in all these respects, both with respect to the salaries and retirement allowances of judges and with respect to the circumstances under which judges may be called upon to accept extrajudicial functions.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I did not think, Mr. Chairman, that we were going to get at least partially into the field of labour-management negotiations and the relationships between unions and management, but inasmuch as the question has been raised I should like to express one or two thoughts with regard to a judge performing the function of chairman of either a conciliation board or an arbitration board.
May I say at the outset that generally speaking I agree with the comments of the Minister of Justice with respect to the functions of a judge in either of these positions. We feel generally that it is not too satisfactory for a judge to attempt to participate as a mediator at the conciliation stage of negotiations in an effort to get each side to give a little bit and reach some settlement.
But when a member of the judiciary or of the bar performs the function of chairman of an arbitration board, especially when that board is considering the question of interpreting a collective agreement, we find that we get much better and fairer decisions from a person with a legal or judicial background looking at the collective agreement and saying what the words in the agreement mean. We generally find also that it is not merely a question of looking at the words and saying what they mean but of tempering the opinion so far as the particular words are concerned with the experience the union and management have had over the years in developing the collective agreement and working out the particular phrases or words in the agreement.

I would suggest that in the discussions that are taking place the minister should exert his influence as much as he can to ensure that as far as possible judges stay out of the field of conciliation, where I do not think they serve any great purpose, and participate more in arbitration, especially so far as the interpretation of contracts is concerned.
Incidentally, in the interpretation of collective agreements union and management have found themselves in difficulty because the chairman of the arbitration board in some cases was not familiar with the law. The courts have set aside the decision of the board because the chairman made a bad decision in law, or did not allow the proceedings before the board to proceed as they normally would in a court, with each side having its day in court and able to engage in proper questioning and so on.
In an attempt to get away from having arbitration board decisions upset by courts of law because they are bad in law or for some other reason, I think we could allow judges to participate more in this field, especially with regard to interpreting contracts. We might thus be able to move toward the easing of labour-management difficulties and strife over these particular aspects of their relationships.
While I may refer to a labour court or a labour judge, I use these expressions only generally and do not want to be misinterpreted as meaning that every difficulty between union and management should end up in the hands of a judge. I certainly do not mean that, but generally speaking I do not think people would be averse to the appointment of additional judges whose function might be to deal with the question of collective agreements and to arbitrate on them.
If I may relate a case in point, I should like to refer to the late Chief Justice Gordon McGregor Sloan of the province of British Columbia. For many years Chief Justice Sloan's name actually appeared as arbitrator in the collective agreements between the international woodworkers of America on the west coast and the lumber operators. Some 30,000 to 35,000 employees and quite a number of companies were involved, and if the parties themselves could not resolve the interpretation of a collective agreement the matter ended up in the hands of Chief Justice Sloan who on the whole, I think, made decisions which were acceptable both to the union and management. In a particular instance they may not have been acceptable to one side or the other, but because he was schooled in the legal field and had spent so many years dealing with collective agreements between the lumber industry and the I.W.A. he had

developed a fairly sensible and reasonably operable collective agreement through his role of interpreting it in certain instances.
I think we could move in the direction of appointing additional judges one of whose functions would be to assist in arbitration, because so far as the interpretation of collective agreements is concerned we might then be better off with respect to labour-management negotiations and relations.


Mr. Hanbidge:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to delay the minister for very long. I have already discussed this matter with him but I wish to have it on the record so that a friend of mine may be able to see that I have mentioned it to the minister. It has to do with retirement allowances. The minister was good enough to mention that he has the matter under consideration, and I believe a committee appointed by the Canadian Bar Association also has it under consideration. I am not going to ask the minister to commit himself or to make any firm promise, but I certainly would appreciate it, and I know at least one retired judge who would also, if the minister would make any provision retroactive if he does increase the retirement allowance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
153. Administration of justice in the Northwest Territories, including the Northwest Territories territorial court, $107,440.
Mr. Hardier I do not intend to hold up the committee and go into the arguments I put before the house at the time the amendments to the Northwest Territories Act were considered on February 19 of this year. Those arguments were supported on February 24 by the hon. member for Peace River, a distinguished member of the bar. I simply wish to ask the minister if he has under consideration amendments to the Northwest Territories Act which would do away with the present concurrent jurisdiction of other courts in Canada over the territorial court, and deal with other suggestions I made at that time.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I can tell the hon. member that in the course of the trip I made through the district of Mackenzie just after the Easter recess with my deputy minister we took occasion to discuss with Mr. Justice Sissons, and with members of the bar in Yellowknife, the problem to which my hon. friend has referred. My deputy went on to the Yukon to discuss this same problem with Mr. Justice Parker who, until recently, was also a member of the bar of the Northwest Territories. There are, it seems to us, certain changes that might well be considered and it would be our hope that the next time the Northwest Territories Act is
Supply-Justice
opened up we shall be able to bring forward recommendations in connection with this problem.


Mr. Hardie:: I wonder if the minister could tell me who appoints the crown prosecutor for the territorial court?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The crown prosecutor is appointed by and acts as agent of the attorney general of Canada, who is also attorney general of the Northwest Territories.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Will this crown prosecutor prosecute cases under the territorial ordinances such as the liquor ordinance?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, that is correct.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Would the minister consider it normal that the crown prosecutor should also sit in the legislative body drafting legislation for the territory and still act as prosecutor in the territorial court?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I believe that is a hypothetical question, because I do not believe there is any such situation at the moment.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Just to refresh the minister's memory I may say that a few years ago the crown prosecutor in the Northwest Territories, who was appointed by the minister of justice at the time, ran for the council of the Northwest Territories and was elected. He then sat in the legislature of that territory passing on the liquor ordinances and also prosecuting cases under that ordinance.
In 1955, I think it was, an order in council was passed dealing with qualifications of candidates for the council. Section 5 of this order in council, subsection (1) (e) reads as follows:
Every person holding the office of sheriff, registrar of land titles office, clerk of the peace or crown attorney during the time he is holding such office-
Shall not be eligible to sit as a member of the council. Then, in 1957, shortly after the present minister took office, an order in council was passed changing this provision, and doing exactly what the minister agrees would not be fair or right-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not agreed at all.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: -that no man should sit in the legislature-


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, wait a moment; the hon. member is putting words in my mouth. I said it was hypothetical because no such situation exists at this time.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I shall continue. After the minister took office, or at least after his government took office, a further order in council was passed dated September 13, 1957 which amended the former order in council by eliminating the words "crown attorney". This

Supply-J ustice
was the only change that was made, the elimination of the crown attorney from those who were not eligible to sit in the territorial council.
I should like to ask the minister, is it normal for one who has the appointment as crown prosecutor to hold executive office in a political organization?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry, I did not hear the last part of the hon. gentleman's question.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Is it normal practice to appoint as crown prosecutors those who hold executive office in a political party or organization?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I had better deal with these questions one by one. Let us deal with the situation of the crown prosecutor in the Northwest Territories. At the instance of my hon. friend, the hon. member for Mackenzie River who has just finished speaking, an order in council was passed by the former government making it impossible for Mr. John Parker to act as crown prosecutor while he was a member of the territorial council. My hon. friend knows that very well because it was at his insistence, his urging, that the order in council was passed.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: The only fair thing to do.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The result of that action was to deprive the crown of the best qualified crown prosecutor in the Northwest Territories.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He did not have to sit in the council.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We found there was no person as well qualified as Mr. Parker to do this work. I want to refer to what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has said. He said he did not need to sit in the council. Of course, he did not need to but the people of the territories wanted him to do so. I realize that my hon. friend, contrary to his usual disguise, does not really believe in the will of the people-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is not going to put words in my mouth.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He implies directly that-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister interrupted the hon. member for Mackenzie River because he said he would not let the hon. member put words in his mouth.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I have the floor.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I should like the two hon. members to take their seats.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When the Minister of
Justice resumes his seat, I shall do the same.


Charles Edward Rea: Will the hon. members take their seats? I understand that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has a point of order, am I right?


John Whitney Pickersgill: A question of privilege.


Charles Edward Rea: May I hear it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The question of privilege is that the minister-I do not say wilfully or deliberately because that would be unparliamentary-was completely misrepresenting what I said. I said there was no need for this gentleman to continue to sit in the council, and I implied by saying that if he wanted to go on being crown prosecutor. I used to be a civil servant and when I wanted to be a member of parliament I ceased to be a civil servant.


Charles Edward Rea: Order; I think this is a question of opinion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In any event, the fact is the people of the Northwest Territories wanted Mr. John Parker to sit in the council and elected him. As a result of the order in council passed by the previous administration shortly before they were dismissed from office by the people of Canada it was impossible for Mr. John Parker to continue to act as crown prosecutor.
As I say, when we took office we found that the office of crown prosecutor in the Northwest Territories required the services of the best qualified barrister that we could get and we, accordingly, rescinded the order in council. As a measure of our confidence in Mr. John Parker, I might point out to you and the hon. member for the area-


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Political confidence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -who has just spoken, that we have since appointed Mr. Parker a judge of the territorial court of the Yukon Territory where he is doing an outstanding and magnificent job with the general support of all the bar of the Yukon Territory. I believe, therefore, that disposes of the question raised by my hon. friend. There is at the present time no crown prosecutor in the Northwest Territories who is a member of the legislative council.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I do not think that answers the question, in any event.


Edmund Davie Fulton: By way of additional information, I may tell my hon. friend that it has been for many years the practice, and still is in many provinces of Canada, for the attorneys general, who are members of the government and elected members of the legislature, to go into court and prosecute cases in the courts of the provinces. Indeed, one of the attorneys general of one of our provinces took

a case in the Supreme Court of Canada just recently in the interests of his province. It is the practice still in the United Kingdom for the attorney general of that country to go into court and prosecute cases in the courts of the United Kingdom. I feel, therefore, that the general conclusion my hon. friend is trying to draw is entirely unwarranted by the circumstances.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I just wonder if I could ask if the attorney general acted as political agent of some political candidate or some political party?


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend, with his broad political experience, would probably be better able to answer that question than I am.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Combines Investigation Act-
156. Restrictive trade practices commission, $86,110.
Charles Benjamin Howard: I have a couple of questions with respect to this particular vote, Mr. Chairman. I wonder whether it might be acceptable to the committee if we followed somewhat the same practice that we followed in the last session, in considering vote 156 and at the same time making some reference to the office of investigation and research under this branch set out in vote 157, because the two of them are interconnected to a degree.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Charles Edward Rea: Is the committee agreeable to that procedure?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I wonder whether, preceding any formal comments on the item, I might inquire of the minister at this time what he is able to report in so far as the report of the restrictive trade practices commission is concerned with regard to the sugar industry in western Canada. From the last inquiry I made about this matter I understood that the question had been referred to a lawyer-I forget his name; I believe it was Meighen of Brandon, Manitoba-with instructions to proceed to prosecute and that if he found in the course of preparing this case that the circumstances and the facts did not warrant prosecution, he was not to proceed. I wonder whether the minister could bring us up to date on what is going on in that particular case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Counsel appointed has been in consultation with the department over quite an extensive period. I am under some disadvantage here because I am not sure the companies concerned have been advised of the present position. Before announcing a decision which affects them I rather feel that
Supply-Justice
I should ensure that they themselves know what the situation is. Would the hon. gentleman perhaps give me time enough to ascertain what is the position with respect to our having given advice to the companies concerned?


Charles Benjamin Howard: May I ask the minister whether he means to spend a few moments now trying to ascertain that matter or at some later date? I do not want to take up the time of the committee now if it is going to take a few moments time to find that out. But if it can be done and the house can be advised at a later date, perhaps on the orders of the day by question or something of that nature, that procedure would be perfectly satisfactory.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am advised that I have already said in the house, either explicitly or impliedly, that prosecution has been authorized in this case. Since that time there have been consultations as to the form of indictment and that is being worked out and either has been laid or will be laid shortly.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I have just one or two comments beyond that. One has to do with what appears to be an exceptionally long period of time that elapses by the procedures set out under the Combines Investigation Act before proceeding to a final conclusion. In many cases some length of time appears to elapse in the initial investigation. I suppose this is quite correct, because in investigating such charges as the operation of a combine, price fixing arrangements and so on, certainly it is desirable to have all the information that can be obtained; and there is no objection to the length of time it takes to get that particular information and to complete the investigation.
The next step makes me wonder whether or not there is sufficient staff in the branch to deal with the question. I refer to the period of time which elapses after the completing of the investigation conducted by the office of the director of investigation and research, between the time that investigation ceases and the time the statement of evidence is submitted to the parties involved. I have in mind particularly one that was completed just recently, notably that involving the question of the sale of raw fish in British Columbia. I understand that the statement of evidence was mailed just within the last month to the parties concerned; yet the whole process of investigation started and apparently was completed some time ago. An inordinately long period of time appears to have elapsed between the conclusion of the investigation itself and the mailing or the completion of the statement of evidence to the parties concerned.

Supply-Justice
Following the report of the restrictive trade practices commission into any particular case, which normally does not take too long, and following upon receipt by the minister of the report, again an exceptionally long period appears to elapse between the filing of the report or the making public of it and the decision or action taken with regard to prosecution. This sugar case to which I refer is a case in point.
I have here the report of the restrictive trade practices commission dated January 7, 1957. That is the date of the transmission of the report from the restrictive trade practices commission to the then minister of justice. It is now over two years later. I can appreciate the fact that there were some political activities during two of the years intervening, namely two elections that may have upset things. Almost two and a half years have elapsed between the completion of the report of the restrictive trade practices commission in the sugar case and we have just about reached the stage, as I gather it, where prosecution will be entered into in court. That appears to be a period of over two and a half years, an exceptionally long period of time to consider the report itself and to consider whether or not there are sufficient grounds to prosecute. In the normal cases that we hear of, apart from the delays that take place once the case comes into court, which is another matter again, there appears to be quite a lapse of time, unnecessarily so, between when the investigations are completed by the director of investigation research and his staff and the time when the final decision is made as to whether to prosecute or not.
We had the same discussions during the last session on these same estimates about an additional two competitions that were being engaged in then for additional staff members. I should like to know whether those two positions have been filled and the competitions completed and whether the minister feels there is sufficient staff, in view of the long period of time that elapses in these cases, properly to cope with all the problems arising. We shall have some opportunity at a later stage in the house to discuss and debate the actual combines investigation legislation itself because there is an amendment to the Combines Investigation Act and to those applicable sections of the Criminal Code which will give us an opportunity to deal with the legislative angle of this matter.
However, there is one question which I think should be dealt with by the branch and one which may have been given some thought and consideration but certainly it
[Mr Howard.]
has not been delved into to any extent, to my knowledge since 1945. I refer to the effect upon our Canadian economy and Canadian companies of the operation of so-called international cartels. Without referring to the record I believe that in 1945 under the instance of the then minister of labour there was an inquiry into the nature and effect of international cartels, so-called, and trade combinations in so far as Canada was concerned. The report goes extensively into a number of items and mentions that Canada like other countries was detrimentally affected by the operation of these so-called international cartels.
The report of 1945 gives examples of the participation of Canadian companies in certain types of cartels and the effect of cartels upon Canada and the prices Canadians are charged for goods and so on.
I wish to refer to some of the materials and commodities covered in this report to give the committee some appreciation of those products in respect of which Canadians were at the mercy of cartels in 1945. The report mentions, among other things, fertilizers including potash, nitrogen and phosphorus; tanning materials, quebraco flat glass, sulphur, dyestuffs, tools, magnesia refractories, titanium pigments, chemicals, soda ash, electric lamps, radio tubes and sets, matches, base metals including copper, lead, zinc, and nickel; steel, aluminum, acetic acid, radium and newsprint. The report points out that in one way or another Canada was at the mercy of corporations which operated outside of the boundaries of the nation with respect to these commodities.
I know, for instance, that the aluminum cartel has been in operation in the world for the past 50 years. The world was carved up into markets. Certain prices were charged and arrangements were made between certain companies under which they would not sell their commodities in markets that had been allocated to other companies. The same situation has obtained in respect of other products as well, some of which I have listed in the brief running account I just gave.
It would appear in view of Canada's present status in terms of industrial production that the time is long past due when we should undertake a study similar in nature to that conducted in 1945 in an effort to determine the effect upon our economy of these so-called international cartels. I should not care to go into detail concerning the work involved in the investigation or how it should be conducted but certainly the terms of reference of the 1945 report would serve as a basis for a further study.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Skeena has raised some questions which I think are important in themselves and certainly deserve an answer. I should like to make a brief statement as to the work of the combines branch generally.
The combines branch of the Department of Justice had a year, upon the whole, of increased activity in 1958-59. Since the work of the branch cannot, by its very nature, flow evenly, statistics tend sometimes not to be too revealing of the tempo of the branch from one year to another. However, the number of formal reports made and published during the year was five as compared with two the year before. The number of files opened on receipt of complaints was 126 compared with 77 the year before. Many of these complaints required little attention but the figures do have usefulness as a partial index for comparative purposes. These numbers do not include a large number of complaints relating to loss-leader selling, because the latter are hard to classify for statistical purposes. The number of investigations disposed of by preliminary reports during the year was ten compared with three the year before. The number of formal investigations of possible contraventions in progress at the end of the year was thirty-one compared with thirty at the end of the previous fiscal year. The number of investigation officers on the staff of the director of investigation and research at the end of the fiscal year was seventeen compared with sixteen the year before, and steps are now being taken to increase such staff substantially.
It is in the light of that review that I should like to refer to the specific questions asked by the hon. member for Skeena as to these delays that do take place between the time of the commencement of an investigation and the launching of a prosecution. My hon. friend referred particularly to the sugar case and to the fish inquiry. I do not for a moment attempt to deny that there is a substantial delay but I believe I am on sound ground in saying that it would be impossible to produce a system under which there would be no delay. We perhaps could shorten the delay and certainly we try constantly to keep it down to the minimum but in the light of the extremely complicated nature of these cases and indeed in the light of the exhaustive procedure of inquiry called for under the act itself, I do not think you could expect, at least in any important combines or merger case to get the matter brought before the courts without the lapse of a substantial period of time between the first inquiry and the actual opening of the case.
Supply-Justice
There has first of all to be an investigation by the director. In the course of that investigation, contrary to what I sometimes hear from business people, the director does his best to accommodate himself to the legitimate requirements of the company or companies concerned and if it is not convenient to them and can be shown to be genuinely inconvenient then he will at their request delay the inquiry until a time convenient to them.
Let us take the fish case where you had a number of parties involved including the union itself. In this case the convenience of the parties had to be considered in relation to the timing of the fishing season and indeed it was at the request of the parties, including the union, that on one occasion for a period of months the inquiry by the director was adjourned.
Let me illustrate this by reference to the sugar case. Here you had a tremendous number of exhibits that had to be looked at by the director and then the director had to make his report on the basis of the inquiry that he had made. There then had to be a hearing by the commission itself. The hearing by the commission necessarily takes a considerable time because of the amount of economic evidence which it is now the practice to take before the commission. My hon. friend will remember that there was an election intervening between the initial report of the commission and the assumption of office by this government. But in the meantime counsel had been instructed to prepare an opinion as to whether or not there was a prime facie case disclosed. He so reported.
It was at that stage that we took office. I was faced immediately with a request from the parties concerned to be given the opportunity to come down and make further representations. Under the circumstances I felt it was only proper that I should do so. Those representations had to be arranged for and the parties had to come from Vancouver and Winnipeg along with their counsel. Following the oral representations, at their request time was given for the submission of written representations and written arguments. All that had to be taken care of before, once again, I was in a position to feel that as the new minister, I had all the relevant facts and considerations before me upon the basis of which I could make a tentative conclusion.
My hon. friend will recall that instead of asking another counsel to give another opinion on the basis of these further representations I decided to save time by adopting a rather different formula. Instead of asking counsel merely for an opinion we referred the case to

Supply-Justice
counsel for prosecution unless in the course of preparing the case he should come to the conclusion that prosecution was not warranted. By that form of instruction I believe we avoided a further delay that would otherwise have taken place.
Since that time counsel has, I assure my hon. friend, been as busy as a busy counsel can be in the preparation of this particular case. I also ask my hon. friend to realize that when you select counsel who are qualified to conduct a case of this kind you are naturally confined to counsel who are in the nature of things extremely busy men. They then have to accommodate their own affairs to the case that we ask them to undertake. We cannot expect them to drop everything else to take a particular case.
I recognize that there has been a substantial length of time intervening between the commencement of the inquiry-indeed the delivery of the report-and the preparation of the case and the bringing of it before the courts but I do not think in a case as complicated as this with as many issues involved, with the parties as widespread as they are, where the convenience of the parties themselves has also to be properly met, you could expect very much by way of lesser delay. But it is a matter with which we are concerned and indeed which we are constantly studying with a view to eliminating the delays to the extent that may be possible.
My hon. friend also asked me about the staff. At the present time we have on the establishment three vacancies. I find that the combines branch is in the same position here as the department generally, in a position which is peculiar, shall I say, to a professional department. We have to recruit lawyers and we find it very difficult to keep our establishment up to strength. As my hon. friend will appreciate there is constant pressure of competition from firms in private practice. At the moment we have three vacancies on the present establishment in the combines branch. It has been decided to make a submission for a further increase of two legal officers or investigating officers in the department and if certain of the amendments I now have in contemplation go through we will be asking for an additional three on top of that. If that should take place we will be expecting an increase in staff of eight investigating officers.
With respect to the matter of international cartels referred to toward the end of the remarks of my hon. friend, it may be of interest to hon. members to know that a senior lawyer in the combines branch, Mr. J. J. Quinlan, is presently in Geneva taking part in the work of a group of experts appointed under the general agreement on

tariffs and trade to study the possibility of international control of cartels by GATT members. This is the third of such international studies. Whether or not anything may come of these studies, it is of course impossible yet to say, but the participation of Canada indicates the continuing interest of this government in the control of private restrictions upon trade both at home and abroad.


Charles Benjamin Howard: 
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the hon. member and the committee that I appreciate his last generous reference. There is, however, some question as to the propriety of the Attorney General of Canada appearing on behalf of the crown before the courts, many of whose judges will have been appointed on his recommendation. Apart from that, however, it is the policy of the department, with which I must say I am in agreement, that rather than seek to maintain a large staff of officers who may be available to go into court at any time, it is the more efficient and more economical approach to rely upon counsel in private practice, whom we retain from time to time as the need arises. I am sure the committee will appreciate that if we were to employ and maintain in the department sufficient counsel so that we could at all times, as a department be in charge of the conduct of all of our litigation, we would have to maintain a staff of such numbers to take care of the peak load of litigation and at other times there would be a number of the departmental officers who would not be engaged at all because the volume of litigation does vary from time to time. Therefore, it has been the experience that we are better served and at less expense by employing outside counsel for cases such as these combines cases particularly, big and complicated involving lengthy examination of documents and exhibits.
With regard to the point made by the hon. member for Skeena that the actual hearings of the commission appear to occupy only a few days, I wonder whether I am not correct in assuming that the instances he has referred to are those occasions upon which the commission met to hear final argument? Certainly, that is my impression from hearing what he said. What happens before the time of a report by the director and the final report of the commission is that the commission holds a number of hearings at which it hears evidence, which may be held at various places and at various times. Then, there is a date set for the final hearing, at which all the parties may be represented to advance their final argument on the basis of the evidence that has so far been adduced. It is my impression, on the basis of what the
Supply-J ustice
hon. member said, that he was referring to those final hearings for the purpose of listening to the argument of counsel.


Charles Benjamin Howard: If I may clear up one point, that may well be, but I do not read that from the reproduction of the letter in the sugar case. The letter is dated January 7, 1957, and is addressed to the Hon. Stuart S. Garson, Q.C., and is signed by C. Rhodes Smith, chairman of the commission. It says:
I have the honour to submit to you herewith the report of the restrictive trade practices commission dealing with the sugar industry in western Canada-
And so on. Then he says:
Evidence and argument in regard to the statement of evidence were heard by the commission at Winnipeg, Manitoba, between August 20 and 27. 1956.
It may well be that they had meetings or hearings before this, but it does say "evidence and argument". I looked quickly through the other three reports I have and I found that they were in the same terminology.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am told that in this particular case there were no other hearings; but in the ordinary case there are long periods occupied by the taking of evidence from time to time at various places. In the sugar case it did go direct to final argument.


Charles Benjamin Howard: In the three other cases to which I referred the wording is precisely the same. Evidence and argument were heard on certain dates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am told that sugar was an exception. In those other cases there were occasions when evidence was taken at times other than the final hearing.


Leon David Crestohl: I should like to refer to item 157. Since we now have before us a bill which seeks to amend the Combines Investigation Act, does the estimate of expenditures which is indicated here for the year 1959-60 contemplate or include the expenditures which may be involved when the bill passes, if it does?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, if there are any additional expenses necessary they, of course, will have to be taken care of by way of final supplementaries because they are not reflected in those estimates or in the main supplementaries. I think I have already indicated in the committee that the only respect in which we anticipate the bill will involve increased expenditure, at least so far as our own staff is concerned, is with respect to the clause dealing with misleading advertisements in which case we do expect to have to employ a small number of additional officers to police that provision.

Supply-Justice


Leon David Crestohl: When the minister speaks of additional officers does he refer to the estimate of the additional solicitors he said he would require?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. In any event, we have three vacancies on the present establishment. We have come to the conclusion that we will, whether the amendments now before the house pass or not, require two additional officers. If the amendments do pass, we think we would require a maximum at the present time of three additional officers on top of that.


Leon David Crestohl: Can the minister tell us
whether the vacancy on the commission has already been filled or when it is expected it will be filled?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, the vacancy has not been filled and has not been filled for the reason that I have been waiting, first of all, to complete my study of the act and make my recommendations to the house as to the amendments that should be made. I would expect that, shortly after the amendments go through, because they do involve the assumption by the commission of additional responsibilities by way of report, I will be making the appointment to the vacancy on the commission.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
158. Bankruptcy Act administration, $52,620.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: There is one matter I should like to bring up on this item, Mr. Chairman. For several months now hon. members have been receiving voluminous letters concerning a certain bankruptcy matter in the city of Vancouver. They are being brought to our attention by one Samuel Morris, and a good many of those letters have been received. The author of the letters seems to feel that he has been badly mishandled and wronged in the courts of the country, and he goes so far as to allege fraud against certain individuals in connection with the bankruptcy. He names persons by name and he makes very strong allegations about them. What strikes me is that if there is no substance to his allegations he may be subject to very serious charges of criminal libel or something of that nature, but so far as I know up to this time no one has objected to the allegations he has made.


Leon David Crestohl: Has he brought charges?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: As far as I know he has not. Can the minister tell the house whether his department has taken any action in this matter or whether he intends to? The correspondence is very voluminous. It is difficult to sort out and really find out what the man is getting at without actually having the facts. It is for that reason that I bring it

to the attention of the minister, to see if he has any comment to make and to see if there is anything that is worthy of the attention of the minister under this vote.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I do not have the details in front of me but my recollection is fairly clear that this was a case in which there was an allegation of fraud in connection with a bankruptcy prosecution. Our investigation of the nature of the allegation satified us that there was nothing here that we could see that brought the matter under federal jurisdiction. The indication was rather that the question of action to be taken by governmental authority was one for the decision of the provincial government. Accordingly we referred the matter to the attorney general of British Columbia and I received an answer from him which indicated that he was causing an inquiry to be made. Since the first reference I have received further correspondence both on behalf of Mr. Morris and from others who were interested in his case and in each instance I have referred the additional correspondence to the attorney general of British Columbia. My present information is that he is still investigating the matter to see whether any and, if so, what action should be taken at the provincial level.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: My recollection of the correspondence is that the law society of British Columbia was also mentioned and that the conduct of a solicitor was brought into question. I am wondering whether this has been brought to the attention of the law society of British Columbia.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would imagine that the attorney general of the province would refer any matter involving the disciplining of a solicitor in British Columbia to the treasurer of the law society for such appropriate action as would be indicated. In any event, that would be a matter to be dealt with by the disciplinary body of the British Columbia law society.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the increase in this vote reflect an increase in the number of bankruptcies? Without too much research, can the minister readily give us the statistics on bankcruptcies for the fiscal year?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The increase in the vote is $1,487 made up of $687 on account of salaries, $500 on account of travelling expenses and $300 on account of office stationery, supplies and equipment for the Bankruptcy Act administration. With respect to the number of bankruptcies, my hon. friend asked for a comparison between the last fiscal year and the year before?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just for the last fiscal year. Are they up or down?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand we go by the calendar year. There was a total of 3,218 bankruptcies reported to the branch in 1958.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is an increase over the previous calendar year?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is actuallly a decrease from 3,486.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
B-Penitentiaries-
159. Administration of the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries, including $75,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by the treasury board, $572,678.
Gabriel Roberge: This item has to do with penitentiaries. On item 150 the minister said that he would take advantage of this item to answer the first question put by the hon. member for Hochelaga. I would not press that point but I should like to say this. The Fauteux report made a certain number of recommendations with regard to the general reform of penal institutions. I noted also that last October the attorneys general of the provinces met in Ottawa with the Minister of Justice to discuss at least one or possibly several aspects of these reforms. I should like the minister to bring the committee up to date as to how far advanced these reforms are, what has been done so far and what is contemplated to be done during the coming fiscal year?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Hochelaga last night and the expanded question just put to me by the hon. member for Megantic, I should first remind the committee, of course, that one of the main recommendations of the Fauteux committee has in fact been implemented completely by the establishment of a national parole board. A Parole Act was passed at the 1958 session of parliament and was proclaimed on February 15, 1959, and the national parole board, composed of a chairman and three members, took over the granting of parole as of that date.
The complete staff of the former remission service of the Department of Justice, with the exception of the former director and his secretary, was transferred to the staff of the parole board. The former remission service had six regional offices, at Moncton, Montreal, Kingston, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. It is proposed to add three new regional offices this year at Quebec, Prince Albert and Edmonton. In addition there are to be ten persons added to the staff of the field offices, six of whom will be for the new offices and four will be additions to the existing offices.
66968-9-314
Supply-Justice
There will be ten persons added to the staff at headquarters in Ottawa to take care of the increased work. These include one parole officer, one principal clerk and eight clerks and stenographers.
One of the reasons for these increases in staff, it will of course be obvious, is the opening of new regional offices and the extra work which will come from those offices. Another reason for the increase in the staff, and a very important reason which I am sure the committee will agree fully justifies the increase, lies in the fact that the parole board will automatically review all sentences of two years and over without any application from the inmate. This was a very important and fundamental recommendation of the committee and one which we have accepted fully. I have some preliminary figures on the numbers of files reviewed. From January 1 to May 31 this year there were a total of 596 paroles granted. Parole certificates were granted in 32.6 per cent of the applications received. In 1958 the percentage of favourable grants was 25.6 and in 1957 it was 30.4 as at this time of the year.
As the facilities of the institutions and in the field offices for obtaining reports are increased it is expected that more paroles will be granted and that the board should be able to obtain the various reports earlier than has been the case in the past. The board has taken steps to have the regional officers do more extensive briefing of the inmates in the various institutions with respect to parole.
With respect to the other particulars of the implementation of the Fauteux committee recommendations, I must refer the committee in general to the appointment of the correctional planning committee and the studies which that committee has undertaken. I placed on the record last year a summary of the terms of reference of the committee showing the specific subjects which were committed to the committee for investigation and report. The committee has in the interim visited a number of countries outside of Canada, including a visit to the director of the bureau of prisons at Washington, Mr. Bennett; visits to other specific institutions in the central and eastern part of the United States; and as well an inspection tour overseas to the United Kingdom where they inspected a number of penal institutions.
Then, individual members of the committee studied the penal systems in Scandinavia, France, Holland and Belgium. Following the trip to the United Kingdom and Europe the committee returned to Canada and in the interim has studied the situation in the maritimes, Quebec and Ontario. After they returned from overseas they went to western Canada where they attended the

Supply-Justice
meeting of the Canadian congress of correction in Vancouver. Then the committee proceeded to California, where they made a detailed examination of the penal institutions in that state. Then individual members proceeded to various other institutions in the western United States.
They have now returned to Canada and have completed a study of the situation in British Columbia, Alberta and I believe are now in Saskatchewan. They will then proceed to Manitoba and return to Ottawa. This concludes their travels and their studies, both within and outside of Canada. From this time forward they will be preparing their report. I expect to receive a number of interim recommendations and the final report by the end of this year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did the committee go to Lansing, and Jackson, Michigan?


Edmund Davie Fulton: So far as we know they have not been to those points.
With respect to the actual changes in the institutions themselves, I may say they are closely related to the Fauteux committee report and the studies we have been making. The commissioner of penitentiaries and his staff have instituted a number of experimental changes. I refer particularly to the opening of a new institution-perhaps I should not call it a new institution-what we term satellite institutions at William Head, British Columbia, and Valleyfield, Quebec. It is true that, in part, the decision to open these institutions was dictated by the fact that our present institutions in British Columbia and at St. Vincent de Paul-indeed everywhere else in Canada with the possible exception of Manitoba-are seriously overcrowded. Nevertheless, we felt that we should combine the necessity for relieving the overcrowding with which we are faced with the opportunity to establish some institutions on an experimental basis.
Both William Head and Valleyfield are new types of penitentiaries altogether. They are both what we might call open institutions. The experiment is succeeding remarkably well. They are small institutions now, what you might call overflow institutions, and both accommodate about 100 prisoners. In addition, we have taken a decision to open a new institution in the maritimes in the Springhill area. I announced, I think last March, that a site had been selected in the general area of Springhill. My hon. friend from Cumberland has been pressing me to make an announcement of the details as to the site, and I am sure that he and members of the committee generally will be interested to know we are now in the process of acquiring options for property near Springhill. We

expect that these negotiations will be completed shortly. I shall be able, then, to make an announcement of the exact location where the institution is to be established.
In addition, I should say that generally we have continued our staff training program within the penitentiaries branch. We have taken steps, with the approval of treasury board, for the establishment of an expanded program of inservice staff training at the various institutions across Canada.
I think that is a fairly general summary of the approaches we are making toward the implementation of the Fauteux committee report. We are consciously and deliberately avoiding stepping out too rapidly until we get the final report of the correctional planning committee. It would be, I feel, very unwise, and an unfortunate thing, if we committed ourselves to expansion or experimental programs in certain directions which might have to be modified when we receive this report. Then we would find we had committed the public to considerable expenditure to do what we had done and then, when we got the final report, we might have to undo it. The final decisions on the program must therefore await the committee's final recommendations and the government's decision on them.


Gabriel Roberge: I wish to thank the minister for giving as complete a summary as possible. This was very interesting to us, and we do agree with him that this is a long range affair and that it takes time to implement the recommendations of the Fauteux report.
I believe the minister overlooked one part of the remarks I made. I made a reference to the conference that was held in October between the attorneys general of the provinces and the Minister of Justice. If I remember correctly there was a question of whether or not those Canadians who received sentences under one year would be committed to penitentiaries instead of common jail. Is there any further comment the minister might make on that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, not at the present time, Mr. Chairman. The recommendation of the Fauteux committee was that all persons serving sentences of six months and over should be the responsibility of the federal penal system. We accepted that recommendation in principle but it was our view and still is our view, expressed to the attorneys general at the time, that if the federal penal system becomes one in which the emphasis is placed on reform, it would not be sensible for us to accept prisoners who have only been sentenced to terms of six months. When you get automatic remission, time off for good behaviour and so on at

one end, and when you take into consideration the length of time that must be taken for the admission and classification process at the other end, it means that out of a sentence of even 12 months you would only have some 8 or 9 months to spend in effective training and rehabilitation. We therefore stated that in our view we should only accept prisoners sentenced to terms of 12 months or more.
In order to implement the provision we have said we would recommend in due course a program to be worked out to the effect that sentences under federal statutes of between six months and one year should be eliminated. If that is done, it means that those sentenced under federal statutes with respect to whom the magistrates or judges think that the requirement is one of exemplary punishment or anything of that nature -and when I say "exemplary" I mean in the sense of some retribution for their wrongdoing but not a long prison term-will be sentenced to terms of six months or less. With respect to those whom the magistrates or judges feel that the requirement is for training, reformation and rehabilitation, they will be sentenced to terms of one year or more and will be sent to federal training and reformation institutions. That is the theory behind the proposal.


Gabriel Roberge: I have just one further question on that item. Did all the provinces agree so far?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, all provinces have agreed, although no province was prepared to take responsiiblity for that recommendation. I want to make that point clear. Several of them said they felt some reservations with regard to the proposal, but they raised no objection. They said, "If you as a federal department are prepared to go ahead and put it into effect we will not quarrel with it but we are not urging it nor are we accepting responsibility for the recommendation".


Mr. Coates:: I was pleased to hear, in answer to the hon. member who preceded me, the statement of the minister with regard to the location of the federal penal institution in the Springhill area and to learn that options are now being obtained on property at or near Springhill.
First of all I should like to express to the minister not only my gratitude but that of the people of Springhill and of the people of Cumberland county for his announcement of March 5 in the house when he stated that Springhill or the Springhill area would be chosen as the site for the new federal penal institution for the Atlantic provinces. I should also like to express gratitude for the 66968-9-314i
Supply-Justice
attention he has paid to the location of this specific institution. He not only had his officials in the area at a very early date but he himself did us the great honour of personally visiting the area and looking over the proposed sites. In that way he was able to appreciate the merit of each of the sites proposed by his officials and was able to take into consideration all of the facts surrounding the location of the institution in that area.
May I also thank him for his early decision to go forward with the work on this institution, at least in a preliminary manner, even though, as he has just stated, the correctional planning committee have not yet made their final report to him on their findings with regard to this matter. This shows the keen interest the minister has had in the people of Springhill, in the light of the unfortunate disaster which occurred there last October as well as the previous disasters that have struck this unfortunate town.
May I ask the minister whether it is possible at the present time for him to enlarge on the type of institution that will be located at or near Springhill or whether he is able at this time definitely to name the site. He might not be able to do this if his officials have not obtained options on the land. Could he also say when he expects work will go forward on the construction of the buildings necessary to assist in relieving the present overcrowding of Dorchester penitentiary.
May I also stress-and I do this most sincerely-the importance of his officials giving every possible consideration to the employment of as many as possible of the people in the Springhill area. A great deal has been said, both good and bad, about the type of people in Springhill. When I say "bad", what I mean is this. Many say, "Well, they are miners; they can't do anything else". I do not believe this for one instant. I firmly believe that any man who has been a miner can probably do any job, of any type, that could be placed before him. There is no harder type of work; and there are no more dedicated people than are the miners of this town. If they are given the opportunity I feel that they will prove, as they have proven on three different occasions, their strength and their ability to provide for Nova Scotia as a whole a very outstanding, worth-while, energetic and! stable community in Springhill which before the minister's announcement of March 5, appeared to be on the verge of slowly becoming a ghost town.
The minister gave them the incentive to go forward. They have embarked upon many different projects to beautify their town and

Supply-Justice
I know that the further incentives that will now be given as a result of the minister's decision to undertake the establishment of the institution in the area, in the near future will add further to the forward look of the people of this area.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman-


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I just deal with the questions asked by my friend the hon. member for Cumberland. Perhaps it might be more convenient if my remarks appeared at this point. First of all I want to agree with everything he has said about the people of Springhill. I am able to confirm that on the basis of the visit I paid there, as he has himself reminded the committee. I found them to be a people determined not to let disaster overcome them but to take their own initiative in meeting and overcoming the situation with which they were confronted. My visit there also confirmed the interim report which I had obtained from the correctional planning committee that that area is in every way a suitable area within which to locate a new institution for the maritime provinces. I regret that I cannot be more specific at the moment as to the exact location because, as I have said, we are in process of acquiring options now. We have two officers down there at the moment. I expect that those negotiations will be completed within a week or ten days at the most. I shall then be glad to make the appropriate announcement.
With regard to the type of institution which it is intended to establish there, the final decision must await the over-all report of the correctional planning committee. However, the committee itself in its interim report not only recommended that this was a suitable area for a new institution in the maritimes which already the indications show is going to be necessary, but that it was also a suitable area in which to establish an overflow or satellite institution for Dorchester penitentiary. So the first function of this institution will be to take care of the removal from Dorchester of those persons who should be taken out of there because of the overcrowded situation of that institution.
The Springhill area is capable of development in one or both of two ways; first, as a prison farm type operation and, second, as an industrial vocational training operation. We are fortunate in having an area which can be developed in one or both of these manners. The ultimate choice will, of course, be a matter for the long term decision and it may be we will pursue both types of development. In any event, we will have acquired, when our present plans are completed, a site which 
first of all can take care of the overflow from Dorchester and which, secondly, is capable of being developed to meet the needs of, preferably, a minimum security type of institution development along the lines of farm training or industrial vocational training.
The first construction which will be carried on will, of course, be of a departmental nature, because until we establish our over-all plan we are not going to build permanent buildings. We shall, of course, keep the hon. member's request in mind that we should employ, both in the initial and final stages, as many as possible of the local population.


Charles Benjamin Howard: On this particular item I
should like to begin by making a reference to the arrival and present visit of Her Majesty the Queen. Some hon. members may wonder what connection there is between that and the question of penitentiaries but I can assure you that there is a connection. There has been some comment recently by a young television artist, Joyce Davidson, about the indifference of Canadians in so far as the visit of Her Majesty is concerned. I say at the outset that I rather agree with Miss Davidson in this regard, but there is a group of people in Canada who look upon the visit of Her Majesty on this occasion, as they did on the last occasion, with a great deal of interest, and this group consists of the inmates of our penitentiaries, because when royalty visits Canada it is usual for the King, or the Queen, to exercise the royal prerogative of pardon and to grant remission of sentence to some of the inmates in the penitentiaries. I am sure that this is pleasing both to the inmates who are released earlier than they thought they would be and to the minister and his officials in the Department of Justice, because they will have to suffer less headaches on account of overcrowding and so on.
With respect to the operation of our penitentiaries and the changing attitude which has been developing in this and other countries for a number of years, I thought it might be interesting if we looked back just 100 years and noted the comments made by a warden of a particular penitentiary and compared them with our general attitude today. The Kingston penitentiary inmates publication "The K. P. Telescope" for March contains excerpts from what is called the warden's diary of March, 1859, and I should like to read a few of the things which were written in this diary 100 years ago by the warden of that day, because they certainly indicate his attitude and, I am sure, the attitude of many other people at that time toward prisoners in penal institutions. Here are some of the entries in that diary written 100 years ago, and they may lead us to reflect on how our attitude has changed since that time.

Convict Frederick Day was sentenced to three days in the dark cells for committing ... a certain offence ... in his cell. His hands will be manacled.
Then there is another entry:
Female convict Edith Knapper sentenced to three meals bread and water and one night without bed for having tobacco on her person.
And, further on:
Convicts Sauve and Herron . . . are constant troublemakers and I am immediately seeing that Sauve is chained in the cell.
References continue throughout this report in that year to inmates being chained, manacled, chained in their cells, being forced to sleep one or more nights without beds, being restricted to a diet of bread and water and so on. Punishments of this type were common throughout this period. I see here another instance of a man ordered to be chained "until he realizes that he cannot be insolent to the guards." And so, throughout this period, there are examples of this cruel, inhuman and disgusting attitude which was expressed and put into practice by officials of penal establishments in those years.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it five o'clock?


Charles Edward Rea: It being five o'clock I do now leave the chair for the house to proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, under the provisions of section 3 of standing order No. 51.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-27 to incorporate the Free Methodist Church in Canada.
He said: The effect of this bill is to merge the Free Methodist Church and the Holiness Movement Church in Canada.
Perhaps, as a matter of interest, hon. members would like to know, or have on record, some of the history of these two churches. The Free Methodist Church had its beginning in Canada in the early years of the 1870's when Bishop B. T. Roberts of the Free Methodist Church of North America accepted an invitation to conduct some services in the area of Agincourt, Ontario. From that beginning interest spread until churches were organized in various sections of Ontario, in western Canada and in some sections of Quebec. The outcome of this was the formation of four conferences in Canada. These conferences co-operated entirely within the general church with its headquarters in the United States, contributing to its funds for evangelism, missions, superannuation and other expenses of the church. This situation
Private Bills
continued until 1923 at which time an agreement was reached between the general church and representatives of the Canadian conferences whereby the latter would retain their funds and be responsible for their own expenses.
In 1927, the Canadian act of incorporation was secured establishing the Free Methodist Church in Canada. Immediately following this a Canadian executive board of the Canadian church was formed.
It may be of interest to hon. members to know that the board of directors comprises Rev. J. A. Robb, president, for many years a pastor and superintendent of the east Ontario conference; Rev. C. W. Reynolds, vice president, also with several years of experience as pastor and superintendent in the east Ontario conference; Rev. R. L. Casement, secretary, having been a pastor for 28 years, a superintendent for 8 years and now completing 9 years as secretary of this board; Mr. L. A. Freeman, treasurer, a school teacher for many years who is now principal of a large school in Hamilton, Ontario.
About the beginning of the present century an organization founded by Bishop R. C. Horner and known as the Holiness Movement church obtained a charter in Canada. Several churches were built in central and eastern Ontario and a few in Quebec and the United States. Interest also spread to the prairie provinces and in due time an eastern and western conference came into being. A strong missionary emphasis developed until the work in foreign fields surpassed in members and churches that in the homeland. A conference was organized in Egypt with 70 churches and between 7,000 and 8,000 members. Work was also undertaken in China until it became necessary for the missionaries to leave.
Throughout the years that the Free Methodist and the Holiness Movement churches have operated in Canada very friendly relationships have existed between them. While there was never a written agreement there appears to have existed a mutual understanding that one would not infringe on the activities of the other.
During recent years there was a growing feeling on the part of the leaders and many laymen in the Holiness Movement church that due to the heavy missionary program, and realizing that the doctrines of the two churches compared so favourably, it would be the reasonable thing to do and it would strengthen the forces for greater progress if the Holiness Movement church could merge with the Free Methodist Church in Canada. These have been the motivating principles behind the activities of these two churches.

Criminal Code
They now feel they can work in unity under this new arrangement and if this legislation is passed by this house the movement will be known as the Free Methodist Church in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: As there are a number of divorce bills standing for second reading, is it the pleasure of the house that these bills be taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill SD-340 for the relief of Timothy Allan Moran.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-341 for the relief of Antonio Choma. *-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-342 for the relief of Helen Ruby Riley Onions.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-343 for the relief of Simone Alberta Chretien Welsh.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-344 for the relief of Edward John Mendelsohn.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-345 for the relief of Marcus Gilmour. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-346 for the relief of Joyce Rosemary Hudson Plam.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-347 for the relief of Bernard Lawrence Boire.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-348 for the relief of Marie Madeleine Marielle Faust Morin.-Mr. McCleave.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. McGee for the second reading of Bill No. C-18, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, when my remarks were interrupted on March 24 I at that time had had an opportunity to make a short statement approximately ten seconds in duration in which I stated to the house that like the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) I, too, had witnessed a hanging several years ago but that unlike the hon. member I still believe that hanging should remain a part of our system of justice.
I did not think at that time there would be an opportunity to continue the debate. I am thankful it has arrived at last and that I will have an opportunity to speak about some of the remarks that were made by the

sponsor of this bill, the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee), and those made by others who preceded me in the debate on March 24.
The house will recall that the three hon. members who led off the debate on that occasion were in favour of the abolition of the death penalty. I was the sole speaker on that occasion who advocated its retention. The resumption of the debate this afternoon affords me an opportunity of presenting some of the arguments that were discussed on the previous occasion as seen through the eyes of an anti-abolitionist.
The hanging that I witnessed took place at Headingley jail outside of Winnipeg in 1948. As I said on March 24, it was an inhumane sight that I witnessed. A considerable amount of controversy raged on the subject and several hundred thousand residents of southern Manitoba and the Winnipeg area had signed petitions asking that the death penalty be commuted to life imprisonment. Notwithstanding the petitions or the fact that a good case perhaps might have been made for manslaughter on the basis of the facts of the case, the death penalty was carried out. Even assuming that the man was wrongfully hanged and that the case was one of manslaughter, I have not changed my opinion concerning the fact that we should retain hanging as a punishment within the framework of our legal system. In short, what I am suggesting to hon. members who previously took part in this debate including the hon. members for York-Scarborough and Vancouver East is that a personal aversion or prejudice to the actual event of hanging should not colour one's emotion in reaching a decision on this subject. Judgment should not have to depend on a personal prejudice. I hope never to witness another hanging but I daresay one could become just as ill as I felt on that occasion as a result of watching a surgical operation. I strongly submit that personal opinion or prejudice should not affect one's judgment and I shall develop this theme more fully as I deal with the arguments that were advanced by those who preceded me in this debate.
One of the usual attacks of the abolitionists camp is that those who have been hanged were not guilty. They can point to an impressive number of cases and argue on them saying that these individuals were wrongfully hanged and therefore hanging should be abolished. For example, almost any student of criminology is familiar with the famous Bywaters-Thompson case in England in the mid 1920's. This was a case which created a great deal of controversy at that time because Mrs. Thompson eventually went to the gallows and

was hanged. The circumstances there were that Mrs. Thompson was older than her lover in that case and they struck up this illegal liaison. The young man in her life used to go to sea, and she would send him letters from time to time. To fan the flames of their passion she would inform him that she was busily engaged in trying to rid herself of her husband by putting powdered glass in his tea. This was not true. The murder itself occurred when Mrs. Thompson and her husband were walking along the street and the young lover ran up to the husband and stabbed him.
There was apparently nothing that Mrs. Thompson did at that time to make her an accessory. She did not pinion her husband's arms so that he was an immobile victim in front of the knife that took his life. In fact, it merely appeared that she was an innocent bystander, as it were, until it became known to the police that the murderer and the murdered man's wife did have this illicit liaison. That caused considerable controversy after she was hanged because people are wont to argue that she was made to pay a fearful penalty by the mere fact of achieving a romantic liaison which did end in her husband's death.
When I look at that case I do not find it particularly inviting in a debate such as this. Of course it may very well be that these chance remarks about putting ground glass in her husband's tea from time to time may well have made the young man think that after all she could not be the murderer of the husband entirely. "I must get in there and play a part myself." He might have been provoked. It was one more famous case that I think is almost always considered in debates on abolition. For myself, I have not thought it particularly helpful and I do not think it makes out any great point for the abolitionists.
The point that has been made by two of the speakers who preceded me in this particular debate is that the crown always has an advantage in murder trials and that the people who present the case before the courts are more able. They have all the resources and the police are rounding up witnesses and bringing them into court and it is very difficult for the defence to present its case properly. Again this goes to the argument, a strange argument, an argument that I find to be somewhat fallacious, that the people who were hanged were never guilty anyway. I think we should have more faith in our courts of justice and certainly anybody who knows court work knows that the greatest care is taken in the presentation of charges of murder against people; that the accused is given a great deal of protection, and
Criminal Code
undoubtedly is given even more protection than usually obtains in criminal cases. If there are dangers, though, that people have been wrongly convicted of murder I do not think the answer is to abolish hanging; rather I would suggest it is to see where the faults are and take appropriate action by amending the Criminal Code or in some other way providing even greater safeguards than exist at the present time.
The third line of approach on this theme, that those who are hanged are not guilty anyway, or the corollary to that particular point, was brought up by one of the members in the debate when he quoted the late Warden Laws of Sing Sing penitentiary to the effect that only the poor man or woman is hanged and the rich people are able to get away with it. There was an impressive statistic presented. The point that really bothers me is that out of 150 people taken to the execution chamber in Warden Laws' experience, 149 were men and the other person was a woman. But, in any event, all the 150 were poor. This point has given me some concern. I do not know whether it particularly goes to the proposition, though, that we should abolish hanging for that reason. It may be that more information is needed on what is the experience in Canada, for example, to see whether the rich are able to get away with murder and the poor are unable to get away with it. Perhaps these are statistics that would be very useful in helping to determine this rather interesting question.
A strong point made by the abolitionists, Mr. Speaker, is that hanging is based mainly on revenge. This argument, of course, suggests that our laws and our civilization are very much unaltered from the laws and civilizations of several thousands of years ago; that the eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth code as it prevailed then prevails with us today.
On this point of revenge one of the preceding speakers quoted Rabbi Feinberg of Toronto in a very moving passage in which he describes his own particular emotions when nazis who had sent thousands of Jews to the gas chambers during the war were eventually brought to justice. Rabbi Feinberg asked himself the question that naturally arises in a civilized man's mind when he finds himself thinking in terms of our basic passions of revenge. I draw that reference to the attention of the house again. I do not intend to read it but it is to be found at page 2199 of Hansard of that particular debate.
On this particular point of revenge, it is asked what happens, what do you do when you see your wife or child being raped or murdered by someone? I do not find this a particularly useful approach in coming to a

Criminal Code
particular decision as to whether to abolish hanging or not. It seems to me that it involves one in a personal and conjectural position, and that it uses the wrong approach to this whole problem. II there should be an approach at all it must be a dispassionate one; that you imagine somebody's wife or child being raped or murdered about 5,000 miles away and what particular remedy you think the law should exact on the rapist or the murderer.
On this particular point of revenge, it is suggested that there is revenge in the hanging of a man or woman for murder. I ask myself the question, who is obtaining the revenge? Is it the judge? There have been cases in the past of the hanging judge, men like Judge Jeffreys of 300 years ago. Even in modern times we hear of such and such a jurist having the mentality of a hanging judge, but I think we will all agree that most, if not all, of those on the bench go there with the proper qualifications. It is not revenge on their part that hangs a person for murder.
What about the jury? They come into court, 12 good men and women true, and are sworn to render a solemn verdict after hearing the evidence and to adjudicate on one fact only, whether the crown has made out beyond reasonable doubt and with moral certainty that the accused did in fact commit murder. Surely it cannot be revenge on their part if they so decide and the accused is hanged. It is not their task actually to determine whether an accused hangs at all. They simply decide whether the accused has or has not committed murder.
What about the role of the prosecutor? Is there revenge there? I suggest not. I suggest that a crown prosecutor's calling involves the presenting of the facts of the case that are in his possession, whether those facts are favourable to the crown and against the accused or whether they are not. This is a professional obligation on the part of the crown prosecutor and I am sure there are remarkably few, if any, who neglect that very basic duty. Surely there can be no revenge by them.
The defence lawyer is in a slightly different position but his relationship with his client must never override his professional duty to the court.
Finally, we come to the man at the end of the line, the hangman who actually carries out the hanging. Is there revenge on his part? Surely I can answer no again for the very obvious reason that he has been commissioned to do a particular duty. He carries out the will and determination of society and, indeed, the accused does not come into his hands at
all for this final act until the due and awful processes of the law have been completely gone through. Where then is the revenge, the eye for an eye and the tooth for a tooth that the abolitionists speak about?
I suggest that if they make any attack at all on the ground of revenge they are directing that attack toward society. I suggest that if they reproach society thus, including themselves, they are in effect conceding that in thousands of years civilization has not really advanced at all, that we are no better off today in our attitude toward the law than the Babylonians were. In short, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that when they say that hanging is based essentially on revenge they are in effect saying that civilization cannot flower, that the minds of men are not capable of advancing from a primitive state of emotion, a primitive attitude toward murder and hanging, to something advanced and civilized.
There I have my main quarrel with them. I believe that in retaining hanging we do not do so because of revenge. We do so because our law has developed to the point that those responsible for the administration of law and society in general are saying that if a man does commit murder upon another man it is a decision of society that the murderer is not fit to live among mankind. I think it is a civilized approach. In making this decision to retain hanging as part of our system of punishment I do not think that people nowadays really regard it as a matter of revenge at all. Just as the eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth theory has pretty well vanished out of the warp and woof of law, so too I think that any notion of revenge has vanished as well.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the bill, the purpose of which is to substitute life imprisonment for the death penalty as the punishment for murder. This is a very controversial subject largely because our concepts of justice and the basis on which justice should be administered have changed throughout the years. In the old days referred to by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) when justice was based on the concept of retribution or revenge as embodied in the phrase, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth it was very simple and logical. But even that basis was capable of being distorted and we had situations only a few centuries ago when the death penalty was imposed for crimes such as stealing. We are reminded of that in the old saying that has come down to us and which we use frequently even today that one might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb.
But as time went on scientific and industrial progress created a large middle class of people

who were capable of exerting a formidable public opinion. As this public opinion became more humanized by religious influences and better informed by the interchange of ideas and by increased knowledge of human behaviour, a public moral conscience began to emerge. As this moral conscience has developed there has been a definite rejection of the old basis of revenge and retribution, as the hon. member who has just taken his seat went to some pains to point out.
The death penalty was rejected as a punishment for the crime of stealing and there has been continual progress in that direction. It has been abolished for one crime after another until today it is imposed only for the most culpable forms of murder. The question now before us is, should it be retained even for such crimes and, if so, on what grounds can it be justified? We have already rejected revenge and retribution as sufficient justification for this punishment.
People who support the retention of capital punishment have tended more and more to base the justification on its efficacy as a deterrent. This in itself, is controversial because as we evaluate the experience in countries where this penalty has been abolished and compare it with countries where it has been retained, we find there is no clear balance of evidence one way or the other. There are statistical surveys which tend to show that when social and economic conditions, as well as other conditions, are similar there is no difference at all even among the different strata of society between countries which retain the death penalty and those which have abolished it.
In the year 1956, this parliament set up a committee to go into this question. This committee recommended that the death penalty should be retained. They based their decision largely on the ground that crime patterns in Canada were, in many respects, different from those in European countries. It was their belief that in Canada, at least, the death penalty was a greater deterrent than any other form of punishment. I think we must give due weight to that decision which was arrived at only after a most thorough investigation and deliberation. If we accept the finding of this committee as a fact, and I see no reason why we should not, then we must still ask ourselves, should this ground of a deterrent be the overriding factor? In my opinion, it should not be.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the overriding factor in cases such as these should be simply, is it morally right or is it morally wrong. The death penalty is justified on the ground that human life is sacred and it is morally wrong for one individual to take the life of 66968-9-315
Criminal Code
another. If it is morally wrong for an individual, how can it be morally right for the state? It can only be right for the state if our concept of the state is such that we regard it is an impersonal body, such as a corporation. In some textbooks a corporation is defined as something which has no body to be kicked and no soul to be damned.
I point out that is the very concept which has been developed by the communist state and by other states which are based on materialistic considerations. I believe we must reject that concept of the state and accept the fact that the state must be morally bound the same as the individual, and that the state is no more or less than what the individuals who have been entrusted with its administration make it.
We know today a great deal about human behaviour and the effects on human behaviour of such factors as heredity, environment, etc. Some of these factors are the creation of the state and are the responsibility of the state. To the extent that these factors have contributed to the behaviour of the person on whom the penalty is to be imposed, then the state itself is not above blame. In insisting upon the imposition of the death penalty the state is like Pilate washing its hands and rejecting its responsibility. This point can be developed to some extent, but I realize other speakers want to participate in this debate.
Having mentioned what in my opinion should be the overriding consideration, I should like to mention the second factor which should be taken into consideration. I refer to the risk of hanging an innocent person. There can be no doubt that that risk exists; there can be no doubt that innocent persons have suffered the death penalty. I do not believe the state can shrug its shoulders at that fact and say, it is too bad but society did it because society has decided that this person is not fit to live amongst us. It is one thing to say an individual is not fit to live amongst us, but it is another thing to say he is not fit to live at all.
If we are to be consistent and build up the law of our country on a moral foundation, if we accept the moral basis of the sacredness of the individual, then I feel we must avoid the risk of taking the life of an innocent person. In my opinion these two considerations, the morality of the thing and the risk of taking an innocent life, outweigh the consideration of the death penalty as a deterrent. For that reason, I heartily support this bill.


Mr. E. L. Morris (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part briefly in this welcome debate originated by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) I attest to no specialized knowledge. I am not a

Criminal Code
lawyer. What I have to say about the subject of capital punishment revolves around my feeling of the concept of the state. In a democracy which attests to any spiritual purpose it seems to me that the state should be subject to the same moral imperatives as is the individual. Both people and state should subscribe to and obey a higher law. What is the basic law of God on earth if it is not the absolute inviolate nature of human life? The root whence everything else of value grows in our society seems to me to be, in Albert Schweitzer's phrase, reverence for life. I cannot persuade myself that this reverence for life can be preserved by adding to what is usually a passionate and private killing, a deliberate public killing. I therefore feel that I must realize my personal share in the extraction of the death penalty. I believe that the hangman is ourselves.
Two basic arguments are generally advanced for the extraction of the death penalty. The first aim of punishment is argued to be that of expiation. It is clearly stated by a recent Archbishop of Canterbury, the late Dr. Temple. In a paper in which he considered the nature of penal treatment and entitled "The Ethics of Penal Action", he said:
The community must exhibit an antagonism in its will against the will of the offending member. This is the first duty of the state towards the criminal himself. He needs, as we all need, sympathy: he needs, as a sick man needs, diagnosis of his disorder and appropriate remedial treatment: but above all he needs the reassertion of the moral law and of his own personal responsibility towards it-
Professor Gilbert Murray has summarized the same view in his preface to "An English Prison from Within", by S. Hobhouse wherein the professor writes:
Other good men hold that, apart from all thought of the consequences, sin should bring suffering, and that, within certain limits, it is entirely satisfactory and correct that prisoners should be miserable, even if no good comes to any human being thereby.
At the international prison conference in 1925 Lord Haldane said:
Punishment may become for the criminal his own act of expiation . . . The prisoner is submitting to his punishment as a reparation made to the fellow men against whom he has sinned in the crime he has committed.
McConnel puts it even more plainly in "Criminal Responsibility and Social Constraint" where he writes:
The law of a state should be based upon the law of God and the punishments imposed by earthly courts can therefore have no higher or different aim than that of upholding the sanctity of the divine law, and of seeing to it that when this has been violated by crime and sin the violation shall be expiated by the suffering of the guilty.

But it would seem difficult to continue to advocate the theory of expiation as being a justification for capital punishment if one considers the words of the distinguished Italian criminologist Professor Ferri, who wrote:
The question of the moral guilt of a criminal lies within the domain of religion and of moral philosophy: it does not come within the province of the state, nor of the legal machinery of the state, because in order to judge the moral guilt of a human being we need to have the omniscience of God-
And that we do not have.
It is the function of religion to judge moral guilt-
What can be said for the theory of retribution, if the theory of expiation fails? West-ermarck, in his "Theory of the Moral Sentiments", writes:
The immediate aim of punishment has always been to give immediate expression to the righteous indignation of the society that inflicts it... Whether its voice inspires fear or not, whether it wakes up a sleeping conscience or not, punishment at all events tells people in plain terms what, in the opinion of society, they ought not to do.
Sir James Stephen, a famous criminal lawyer of the late Victorian period, declared:
It is highly desirable that criminals should be hated, that the punishment inflicted upon them should be so contrived as to give expression to that hatred, and to justify it.
Both expiation and retribution seem to me, Mr. Speaker, to fail on both tests which could be the only proofs of the validity of any general purpose of punishment. They fail because they are neither practicable nor are they applicable in all cases. It is certainly true that from time to time when some crime of peculiar atrocity against some defenceless or perhaps attractive victim is thrust upon public conscience, the community is moved by detestation of the act and by something akin to hatred of the offender. But this is profoundly unsatisfactory if it is advanced as being enough to justify either the expiation or retribution theories as having any general bearing on the purposes of punishment.
Capital punishment, far from being protective of society, seems to me to be punitive in its aim. It appears also to be purgative in effect and it is certainly primitive in form. Indeed it is one of the tests of an evolving Christian civilization that it advance from the theory of capital punishment. Capital punishment seems to be recidivist. The test of an advancing civilization in one sense lies in our attitude towards reverence for life. I do not think the state at any time has the right calculatedly to take a human life by means of capital punishment. I think it is primitive and punitive, and I think it is

a peril to the moral fibre of a Christian democratic society. I would, therefore, vote for the bill.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to say a few words in support of this bill. I have never witnessed a hanging, and I have no desire to see one, but the arguments presented by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) on a previous occasion and by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) are unassailable when one considers all the aspects of capital punishment and the evolution of our civilization. In this light, consideration of the abolition of the death sentence appears to be reasonable and sensible.
True there are crimes committed by individuals which demand a vengeance to heaven and for which even a death sentence would not suffice, but I honestly believe that life imprisonment in such cases would be more dreadful than the sudden end of life. Be that as it may, the time has come for enlightened nations to consider seriously the abolition of this ancient method of maximum punishment. The "pros" and "cons" will wax warmly. Nevertheless, the time will surely come, if it has not come now, when capital punishment in peacetime will be a thing of the past.
I will not take too much time in going over the reasons why we should seriously consider approving this bill. This is not the first time that eloquent arguments have been presented in support of a change from the punishment of death to a sentence for life. Several hon. members of this house have on occasions made substantial contributions toward the object of this bill. I am merely supporting those valiant warriors whose unselfish interest in this matter should be clear to all concerned. Such an advance as they suggest would not be introducing a precedent for a civilized nation, because there are dozens of countries, including several of the states to the south of us, which abolished the death penalty long ago.
In the report of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on capital punishment made in June, 1956 capital punishment is stated to have no unique deterrent effect which would not be accomplished by imprisonment. It was claimed that a considerable proportion of murders are committed in circumstances of sudden passion and that such murders cannot be deterred by threat of the consequences. In contrast, those who carefully plan a murder or a crime such as robbery from which murder results, were alleged to make plans deliberately to avoid detection, and not to be influenced by the threat of the death penalty.
66968-9-315J
Supply-J ustice
Moreover, a study of the report would indicate that a good case can be made of the fact that it is morally wrong for the state, as well as for an individual, to take human life. The death penalty is certainly at variance not only with the principles of Christianity but also with the humanitarian and social development of this day and age. In short, it does not appear to be justified as a deterrent and is retained only as a means of revenge. Then, as has already been eloquently pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter), there is always the risk of executing an innocent person.
To those who say that the abolition of capital punishment would prejudice the safety and well-being of the public, I would point out that the experience of those countries which have not had capital punishment for many years is ample proof that such a fear is unfounded.
For all these reasons, may I say, in conclusion, that I am heartily in favour of this bill.


Mr. Stuart Fleming (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: Mr. Speaker, the case in favour of the abolition of capital punishment has been placed before us in arguments so eloquent and persuasive that it is impossible not to be drawn to them and to feel strongly that they are based on firm moral ground. I also think it is as well-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. It being six o'clock this house will now revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

The house again in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OP JUSTICE Penitentiaries-
159. Administration of the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries, including $75,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by the treasury board, $572,678.
It being six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, when the
debate was interrupted at five o'clock I was reading excerpts from a warden's diary written in 1859 describing atrocities wreaked on prisoners including manacling, chaining, handcuffing and sentencing to a diet of bread

Supply-J ustice
and water for three days without their being given a bed for so small an offence as being in possession of tobacco.
Over the years the attitude on the part of the administrative and custodial staff of penitentiaries has been altered to a degree but the attitude has not altered sufficiently to permit us to be proud of our penal institutions and some of the things that take place in them. Atrocities still exist. Some penalties and disciplinary measures that are imposed on inmates are not in keeping with good taste and human dignity and certainly are not conducive to reformation. I believe this is because for a number of years the theory behind penal institutions was that they were based on vengeance. They were operated on the basis of the revenge of society against an individual who committed an illegal act. Unless we can alter this philosophy and adopt a more positive approach involving vocational training, guidance, and psychiatric treatment we will continue to meet little success in the reformation of individuals who have run foul of the law.
We cannot achieve much success in following a system of treatment designed to rehabilitate inmates with the present overcrowding that exists in most penal institutions with the possible exception of Stony Mountain in Manitoba as the Minister of Justice said earlier.
I have some statistical information based on a question I posed to the minister some time ago and which I was fortunate enough to have ansv/ered today. Of course the information will not appear in Hansard for the benefit of other hon. members until Hansard for today is printed. I wish to refer to that information at this time. As at December 1, 1958, our total inmate population in penitentiaries was 6,064. The total number of cells available for inmates was 5,171. This leaves a balance of 890 inmates who have not individual cells available to them.
The construction of satellite institutions as the minister described them may assist in this problem and the visit of Her Majesty will assist in lessening the prison population and those who leave the institutions will be even more happy about her coming.
In order to cope with the problem of overcrowding it has been necessary to establish in most penitentiaries dormitories or sleeping facilities where the inmate is not confined in his cell but shares accommodation with other inmates. I am not decrying the fact that this situation exists because in many circumstances I think it is a better arrangement than confining an inmate in a cell. I understand that there are 1,171 inmates in dormitories. Because of overcrowding it has been necessary to convert to 
sleeping accommodation a space in penitentiaries that was formerly used for other purposes including recreation, corridors or carpentry shops. This space is converted into temporary dormitories so that the inmates will have some place to sleep. I understood that this has been done at the following penitentiaries: Dorchester, St. Vincent de Paul, Kingston, Prince Albert, British Columbia and Collins Bay.
When an inmate is sentenced to hard labour it no longer means breaking rocks with a hammer and a ball and chain around his leg. It merely means that the inmate must perform some kind of work at the discretion of the officials. This would embrace carpentry, fixing mail bags for the post office department, working in a blacksmith shop or a machine shop or doing farm work.
When it is necessary to convert space that served other purposes into sleeping accommodation it adds to the leisure time of inmates through the loss of recreational facilities, carpentry shop or other things. This problem is aggravated as prison populations increase. We all know that idle hands lend themselves to mischievousness. Most inmates already harbour certain feelings of antipathy but when deprived of constructive outlets through the conversion of useful space to sleeping accommodation it will lead to an increased hostility and the inmates may become involved in infractions of prison rules that will lead to their being brought before the warden's court. They may lose some of their good time or they may be sentenced to time in the black hole, or in the hole, as it is known. I refer to solitary confinement. If the misdemeanour is bad enough an inmate may be sentenced to being paddled across the rear by one of the custodial staff. This is not conducive to reformation and in no way assists inmates to become useful members of society upon their release.
While the minister is attempting to implement the recommendations of the Fauteux commission and is awaiting the final report of the correctional planning commission these problems are becoming increasingly aggravated. The longer we delay in adopting a constructive approach the more difficult of solution will the problem become.
I wish to refer to an experiment commenced in 1957 in the state of California about which I learned when I wrote to the director of the department of correction of the state of California. I received in reply information regarding a process known as sleep therapy. This may appear to be a science fiction approach that does not work too well. The process generally is that the inmate not only reads aloud as well as silently from a prepared text but his reading is recorded on

a tape recorder and played to the inmate while he is asleep. I have some information on the subject which I should be pleased to show to the minister if he does not already have it. This material was prepared under the direction of Mr. John Locke, public defender of Tulare county, California; Mr. Edgar D. Price, deputy public defender; Mr. Robert C. Lally a former recreational therapist at Porterville and Camarillo state hospital; and Reverend Glenn Peters, minister of the Ivanhoe Presbyterian church.
They helped to develop this particular system of sleep therapy and assisted in an attempt at reformation of people who are in some of their penal institutions in California. The material points out that it has worked to a pretty good degree in so far as inmates who have an alcohol problem are concerned. The result of these experiments indicates that this sort of sleep therapy treatment could also work where a person has a problem or has a desire to escape from reality by being addicted to other things such as narcotics. The prime experiment has been made on people who were drinking quite a bit and were either alcoholics or on the verge of becoming alcoholics.
The survey made of the individuals who had taken this sleep therapy treatment-and I may say that it is completely voluntary; no one is forced to participate in it in the slightest degree; it is completely voluntary on the part of the inmate-which was made in March indicated that 52 per cent of the inmates who took the treatment showed substantial benefit. The latest survey of inmates who were serving sentences of over three months, or an average of 116.3 days, indicated that 72 per cent showed a substantial benefit. This is something which I think might be given serious consideration by the department. As Mr. Locke and Mr. McGee, the director of corrections, say in their letter, extreme caution must be used in instituting such a program, and there must be a great deal of care and planning in the preparation of it; otherwise the inmates will rebel against it and it will not be of any help.
I think this is something that could be discussed, adopted and thought about. If it works to the degree that this information indicates it does in one part of the nation in so far as alcoholics are concerned, then there is every reason to believe that it will work in another part of the country at least in so far as alcoholics are concerned. If it is designed around the psychological imbalance which drives people to become addicted to something or other in order to escape reality, then there is reason to hope that it will work to a limited degree in so far as narcotics are concerned. Also, it will
Supply-Justice
substantially lessen the effect of alcohol and narcotic addiction upon society and upon our crime rate.
When I mention the question of overcrowding I hope I may be permitted to wander far afield and make reference to an item which I drew to the attention of the house a few weeks ago with respect to the Penitentiary Act. I point out to the minister that although we have dormitories, some of them permanent and some temporary, in corridors, other places and so on-these dormitories have been in existence for some time- I submit to the minister that they are absolutely and completely illegal in so far as the Penitentiary Act is concerned. I am not suggesting that an inmate who is released from the penitentiary is going to take the minister to court because he was housed and had to sleep in a dormitory when the law says that he shall sleep in a cell by himself at night, but I suggest there is room for an improvement in the Penitentiary Act in this particular regard.
I am not a person who has had any experience or grounding in legal matters, but I have discussed this with a couple of lawyers and they are of the opinion that if an inmate was injured in one way or another while sleeping in a dormitory he would have recourse against the crown for damages because he was not properly protected, the law was not strictly followed in providing him with and keeping him in, as the law says, a cell by himself at night. I do not want to see the minister dragged into court and ordered to pay damages to some inmate, but the lawyers with whom I have discussed this have looked into the act, and that is the information they give me. So far such a thing has not happened. We want to prevent the minister from going to jail, but we also want to legalize and regularize that which has been going on for some period of time.
I also ask another question of the minister with respect to penitentiaries as it relates to members of parliament having visited various penitentiaries. We are the ones who enact laws which apply to the operation of our penitentiaries; we are the ones who consider the estimates, as we are considering them now, and attempting to determine whether the approach and the policy used by the minister and his departmental officials are the correct ones or not. Therefore, I made some inquiries as to how many members of parliament had been sufficiently interested in the past to visit some of our federal penal institutions. The answer which I received was to a degree disappointing because, as I said, we are the ones who will be legislating and the ones who are considering the estimates

Supply-J ustice
and the policy and the attitude of the department and its officials in so far as penology or penal matters are concerned. Since January 1, 1955, only 10 of the present members of parliament sitting here have undertaken to visit any of the penal institutions under our jurisdiction. This is a bit of a disgrace.
I know we do not all have the opportunity to visit every type of institution or to participate in or study every possible question which comes to the attention or comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government. None the less, I think many more of us _ should take the opportunity of at least visiting the penitentiaries and talking with the wardens, the custodial staff and the inmates themselves about the problems and the difficulties that confront them, and learning their ideas so that when we do come to legislate, when we do come to consider the estimates of the department, the policy and the attitude of the departmental officials, we shall be in a much sounder and better position to do so because we would have had at least made a cursory examination of some of the institutions, even though it may be a slight discussion with the officials and the individuals themselves.
In closing I should like to pose some specific questions to the minister. I understand there are far too few psychiatrists and psychologists attached to the penitentiaries but in so far as decisions of psychiatrists and psychologists are concerned has the warden of a particular penitentiary the authority to override a recommendation of a psychiatrist or psychologist? I should also like to know who is allowed to visit an inmate and with what regularity, once a month or how often? How many letters is an inmate allowed to write each month and how many is he allowed to receive? To whom may he write and from whom may he receive letters? With respect to incoming letters, especially those from relatives, if they are censored what happens to them? Are the letters kept and does the inmate get them upon his release or are they returned to the sender? Is the inmate told that somebody has written to him but he cannot have the letter because it has been censored? What about the letters which inmates write? When they are censored or deletions are made are they returned to the inmate and is he informed that there is something wrong with it and that he should rephrase it?
I should like the minister to give consideration to this suggestion which has to do with the question of remission and the loss of time off for good behaviour. I believe it would be the decent thing to do if we were to give wardens the authority to return to the inmate any time taken way from him because of misdemeanours. It may be that the inmate, especially if it is the first time he has been

in a penitentiary, may not be too familiar with the rules. He may have a rebellious attitude, may infract some of the rules and regulations and thereby end up in the warden's court and lose five or ten days of his time off for good behaviour but during the rest of his period in the penitentiary he is a model prisoner. I think some compensation should be given for the fact that he conducts himself within the rules during the balance of his term and perhaps the ten days he lost originally might be returned to him toward the end of his sentence by way of compensation for good behaviour.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think I should probably start with the specific questions asked by the hon. member. First, he asked me with regard to the decisions of psychiatrists and whether the warden has the authority to override those decisions. Of course, in so far as the decision of the psychiatrist may be a decision or recommendation as to the medical, physical or mental condition of an inmate, the warden has in that sense no authority to override it because he cannot, if the psychiatrist finds a man to be ill, say that he is not ill. But the warden is the chief executive officer of the penitentiary and the warden has and must have final authority to determine what will be done with respect to an inmate. Therefore the warden has, of course, authority in the strict technical sense to reject or to refuse to act upon a recommendation, whether it be from a psychiatrist or from any other person, with respect to an inmate in the prison of which the warden is the chief executive officer. But I can assure the hon. member that if there were a case where a responsible prison official such as a psychiatrist made a specific recommendation which the warden felt he could not or should not carry out there would very speedily be a reference to the commissioner and the matter would be resolved at the headquarters level.
With respect to the question as to who is allowed to visit penitentiaries. Any immediate relatives are allowed to visit, without restriction or the necessity of obtaining any special clearance, within the visiting hours laid down. With respect to general visitors, those who are not related to the inmate, the regulation provides that they have to get the permission of the commissioner before they can go into the institution. What I have just said does not apply, of course, to persons such as social workers, members of the John Howard society and so on who have a general clearance in advance for the purpose of visiting penitentiaries. Persons other than relatives and accredited social workers, newspaper reporters, indeed members of parliament and so on who want to visit these

institutions, require to obtain clearance from the commissioner. I am wrong there. Members of parliament have the right under the act without the necessity of clearance from the commissioner.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I was going to say that when I was first elected I wrote and asked for permission and the minister wrote and told me I did not need it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend's memory is better than mine. With respect to the number of letters that an inmate may write and receive, he is allowed to write four letters a month and special letters if the occasion warrants it. There is no restriction upon the number of letters he may receive from immediate relatives who are set out in the categories defined in the regulations. With regard to a letter which an inmate has written and which is not allowed to be sent out under the regulations, it is returned to the inmate and he is told the reason why the letter cannot be dispatched. If it is a matter that can be dealt with by re-writing he may rewrite the letter and send it out.
With regard to incoming letters which are not allowed to be delivered to the inmate because they contain something which under the regulations makes the letter inadmissible, such letters are sent back to the person writing them with an explanation of why, under the regulations, they are not allowed to be delivered to the inmate.
With respect to the general comments of the hon. member for Skeena, I have made no secret of the fact that we do have this overcrowding situation in our institutions across Canada. We are moving to meet the situation. I would point out that under the estimates this year the construction vote is up $1,682,000 over last year and there is a further $572,000 in the supplementaries for construction, making a total increase of some $2 million odd over last year.
The Joyceville institution, some eleven miles from Kingston, is expected to be completed and ready for occupation this fall. It will go a very long way toward relieving the overcrowding situation at Kingston and also at Collins Bay.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is there a second Collins Bay as well as Kingston penitentiary?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is just Kingston, Collins Bay and the women's prison at Kingston.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But the new
place, Joyceville, is only for Kingston, is it not, only for the penitentiary?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It will relieve it to this extent, that Joyceville will be what is described as a medium security institution. It will be able
Supply-Justice
to take inmates from Kingston and by relieving the overcrowding at Kingston of prisoners of that type, will also relieve the pressure on Collins Bay.
Last year we commenced the construction of a new institution similar to Joyceville near St. Vincent de Paul. Contracts have been let for a little over $3 million, and the construction of this new institution we hope will be completed by the summer of 1960.
Then, as the hon. member himself has pointed out, there is a program of dormitory construction and the construction of temporary accommodation at other institutions, notably Prince Albert. In addition there are the satellite institutions at William Head and Valleyfield and there is the new institution to be commenced at Springhill. In this way, we are moving to take care of the immediate problem of overcrowding. When we get the complete report of the correctional planning committee, then of course we will be able to work out a complete program for the construction of new institutions elsewhere in Canada which will fit into the over-all penitentiary program.
One of the main problems, of course, is the location and design of a new institution in western Canada, and that is something upon which I am awaiting specific recommendations from the committee. My hon. friend did point out that under the Penitentiaries Act each inmate is entitled to a cell. I am concerned about that situation. All I can say, however, is that I am told that long before overcrowding became as acute as it is now, and as it has been for the last two or three years, inmates were confined two to a cell and dormitories were designed and authorized under the penitentiaries program. There are situations in which dormitories are more suitable than this single cell principle. I might say that dormitories are desired by the majority of inmates who do not like the feeling of being locked into a narrow cell at night.
I cannot tell my friend why the act has not been amended previously to take care of this situation. I only ask him to show some forbearance and not to lay charges because we expect, after we-get the recommendations of the committee, we will have some very substantial revisions of the Penitentiaries Act to make. This is one of the matters which will certainly be taken care of at that time.


Charles Benjamin Howard: May I ask the minister another question because I do not believe he quite understood my point. I am not complaining about the use of dormitories, I am just sug-gesing it is illegal. I inquired about visiting. How often and with what regularity can an inmate receive visitors?

Supply-Justice


Edmund Davie Fulton: An inmate is allowed one visit per month and up to three visitors at one time.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Another question which I posed is, if a letter is written to an inmate which cannot be forwarded to him because of its contents, it is returned then to the sender, and is the inmate advised that a certain person wrote to him but he could not receive the letter?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, I am informed that the inmate is advised that the letter has been sent back to the sender.


Charles Benjamin Howard: May I make one or two comments about that? First, in so far as the letter being returned to the writer is concerned and the inmate being advised that he had received the letter, I may say that the last time I had the opportunity of visiting Kingston penitentiary I spoke to two inmates who claimed that this was not so. They said they had had relatives write to them and they discovered this quite some time after the letter had been written. The letter had been censored or had not been forwarded by whoever is responsible for not allowing letters to come in. The letter had been returned to the sender but the inmate had not been advised.
Something of that nature is quite upsetting to an inmate, especially if the letter happens to be from his wife or his parents or some very close relative. It is upsetting if the inmate does not hear from a relative for a month or something of that nature. I think some more strict application of this notification to the inmate that the letter has not been given to him because of its contents should be followed out.
I should like to inquire incidentally with respect to who the censors are, if that is what they are called, of this correspondence between inmates and persons outside. What qualifications do they have? Is there any guidance given to them? Is that their sole duty, the handling of mail in and out, or do they have something else to do?
In so far as visits are concerned, especially from relatives, I think it is rather unfortunate that this is confined to one a month. That may be sufficient in many cases. I am sure there are inmates who have no visitors or, perhaps, over a period of a year may have one or two visits because their families live some distance from the penitentiary. However, in other cases, I am sure this is not so. If an inmate, for the sake of argument had his home and his family in Kingston and was sentenced to Kingston penitentiary, I am sure you could expect the relatives would want to visit him. He would normally

want to see them more than once a month. I think this provision should be relaxed.
In so far as the four letters a month are concerned, I hardly think that is sufficient. This may be because of my personal attitude toward writing, but I hardly think four letters would be sufficient in all cases. Inmates should not have to make a special plea to the warden to write a special letter. I believe you could extend the four letters a month to something greatly in excess of that. If a prisoner has a wife or has parents, for instance, it means he can write to them alternately, so that he would write to his wife twice a month and to his parents twice a month. If he has children, then the condition worsens. I think four letters a month for an inmate is far too strict a provision. There are many inmates who would not take advantage of the privilege of writing four letters a month, but for those inmates who would like to write more often I am sure it would be most helpful if we could expand the provision and allow the inmate to write more than four letters a month if he so desires. In so far as Joyceville is concerned, I understood the minister to say that this was to be a medium security prison.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct.


Charles Benjamin Howard: 
Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect to the letters of inmates of Kingston penitentiary to which my hon. friend refers, I have checked further and I am advised that although the act authorizes the warden to retain, destroy or otherwise deal with an inadmissible letter as he may see fit, the practice is to return the letter to the sender with an explanation why it is inadmissible and so to inform the intended recipient. My advisers inform me that this is the practice and if there has been any departure from that practice we should be glad to be supplied with the names and particulars in so far as the hon. member has them available so that we may investigate.


Charles Benjamin Howard: This is only what has been told to me by inmates with whom I have spoken. They may not have told me the full facts.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect to the official who is authorized to examine the mail, he is known as a censor clerk and his sole duty consists of supervising the arrangements for visits, supervising visits and censoring the mail, incoming and outgoing. If there is any case in which there is any doubt as to whether a letter is properly sent out or properly to be delivered to an inmate, the clerk of course can refer the matter to the warden.
With respect to the problem of the number of visits that an inmate is allowed to receive, I think the hon. member has probably stated correctly that consideration should be given to relaxing that restriction of one visit a month. However, I am informed that the governing factor in this situation is the accommodation available. When you take an institution such as St. Vincent de Paul, which I regret to say now has something over 1,300 inmates and is close to Montreal from which the majority of the inmates come, I think my hon. friend will see that if we were to admit much more than one visitor per month we would be simply unable to provide accommodation for visitors and inmates to carry on these visits. But we have been working, I am informed, on the improvement of the accommodation available for the holding of visits. As we proceed with our construction program generally and relieve the overcrowding situation, with the special attention that is being paid to rooms available for visiting, we hope then to be able to take another look at this limitation of one per month.
Supply-J ustice
With regard to Joyceville I think it may be correctly described as a medium security institution and not just another Kingston penitentiary as has been suggested. With respect to the building itself, it is true that all normal activities will be carried on within the ordinary walls of the building. But there is no prison wall around Joyceville. I want to emphasize the fact that there is no provision for gun turrets and that no guards will be stationed with guns at any point in Joyceville as in the big old fashioned type of institution. Furthermore, the construction program calls for the installation of exercise ground or grounds outside the prison wall and not enclosed by a wall. The Joyceville compound will not in itself be enclosed by a prison wall as is the case with the old fashioned types of institutions which are described as maximum security. There will merely be a fence. There will also be a farm attached to Joyceville which will similarly be surrounded by a fence and not by a wall. There will be many occasions on which inmates will be outside the walls and not separated by anything other than ordinary fences from the outside. It is not a minimum security institution by any means but it is a very considerable improvement on Kingston.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I have one other thought on this matter, if I may be allowed to express it. Will the institution at Springhill be a maximum security institution or a minimum security institution?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That institution will certainly be starting as a minimum security institution and I hope we can keep it as a minimum security institution.


Charles Benjamin Howard: What about the proposed penitentiary in western Canada or is that too far in the future to determine what degree of security will surround that one?


Edmund Davie Fulton: About as far as I can go in that matter is to say that we do not think it will be anything more than a medium security institution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about the satellite institution at William Head? Is that the old type? I do not know whether or not I am correct in calling it a satellite institution. Is that the old immigration building?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, that is correct. It is the old quarantine station owned and operated formerly by the Department of National Health and Welfare.

Supply-J ustice


Paul Joseph James Martin: That means that the government of British Columbia has not accepted the proposal that was made some time ago about the use of that building.


Edmund Davie Fulton: All I know is that the British Columbia government has not taken it over. I was not aware of the details of the offer to which my hon. friend refers.


Mr. Winch:: If an inmate breaks the rules of the institution he is subject to discipline and that is done by the warden. There are many methods of discipline such as taking away good behaviour time, taking away of privileges such as that of writing, tobacco, radio and all sorts of things. There is also the power to send a prisoner into solitary confinement. It is about that matter that I would like to have a few words to say. On April 14 I asked the minister a question as follows:
Are there any federal penitentiaries where dis-association cells (solitary) are of such a nature that in addition to the barred door, there is an additional steel door cutting out all sight and voice to the inmate.
The minister, in answering that question, said this:
Yes, Dorchester, Kingston and Manitoba penitentiaries.
In other words, there are three penitentiaries in Canada which, in addition to the steel rod doors, there is also a solid metal door. I have visited some of these solitary cells and I want to say that I think they are an absolute disgrace. It is absolute torture to put a man into these small-sized closets with no window through which he can see out-not only a floor, a ceiling and three blank walls, but a steel door in front of him by means of which he is shut off during the whole of the time he is in solitary-and he may be three weeks or even months for 23-J hours a day. He can see nobody, hear nobody and talk to nobody. I admit there are occasions when solitary confinement may be required, but I say it is medieval torture to keep a man cooped up the way men are kept in these prisons. Moreover, if a man is in the least prone to claustrophobia it does not take much imagination to visualize what could happen to his sanity. I sincerely hope the minister is going to have a change made and have these solid metal doors removed, or at least left open.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are, I am happy to say, several inaccuracies in what the hon. gentleman has said. I am sure the inaccuracies are only inadvertent. Visits and correspondence are not automatically forfeit when an inmate is sentenced to solitary confinement.


Harold Edward Winch: I did not say they were automatically forfeit; I said they could be taken away.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But they can be forfeited only, I understand, because of abuse of the visiting or mail privileges, and this would be a rare case.
With respect to the question of the solid door, I think it should be emphasized, first of all, that there are only three institutions where there are these solid doors. But it is not customary for these doors to be closed.


Harold Edward Winch: Every time I have been there they have been closed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That might be due to one of two factors. Either there was nobody in solitary confinement at the time, in which case it would not matter or, possibly, the hon. member was on the wrong side of the door. But I am informed that it is not customary for these doors to be closed and that they are only closed temporarily in the event that a prisoner is creating a disturbance, in which case it is desirable to close the door to prevent the disturbance from upsetting the rest of the institution. As soon as the disturbance has ceased, the door is opened, and in the ordinary course of events the only door which is kept closed is the barred steel door, not the solid door. I do not deny that there may be occasions when this door is closed, but the occasions are those I have described.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have been in this house for 14 years and I realize that there are many improvements to be made in our penal system and in our penal institutions. I have got this information from people who are very interested in penal institutions, and in their opinion there has been a great improvement since the present commissioner took office.
Strangely enough, I have a relative who is one of the senior penal psychologists of Great Britain, Dr. Trevor Gibbons, who had an opportunity to meet the commissioner when he was attending a meeting in New York in connection with the United States penal institutions, and he told me he was very impressed with the plans which the commissioner had in mind, and with his whole approach to the operation of penal institutions in this country. I am of the opinion that many of the faults that have to be corrected are caused by the lack of sufficient space, the lack of suitable institutions and, in the past, the lack of funds, and we certainly hope that these will be provided in the future.
I have reason to ask the minister a question or two and while I know that under provocation he can become acidulous, he is at heart a kind hearted man. A gentleman who is very

interested in this question of the rehabilitation of prisoners has written to me expressing concern about the possibility that the present government may cut out all sentences between the length of six months and one year, and he has asked me to inquire what is intended in this respect; what would be the line of demarcation between the sentences of men and women sent to prison and those sent to jail.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This was discussed briefly this afternoon. Before I enter upon that subject, however, perhaps I should express my appreciation of the remarks which the hon. member has made with respect to the commissioner, to whose services I should like to pay my tribute. I should remind the committee that we amended the Penitentiary Act last year to permit of the extension of the term of the present commissioner. At this time, particularly when we are embarking upon this extensive program of reform and modernization, we consider it essential that we should retain his services as long as we are able to have the benefit of the experience of this highly qualified and dedicated officer.
With respect to the question of the difference between the six months and one year terms, I will just be brief, because, as I say, we discussed this this afternoon. The hon. member will recollect that the federal government agreed to assume responsibility for all persons sentenced to terms of more than six months. This was agreed to in principle, and the provinces agreed to it in principle at the conference which was held last October. It is, however, our view that as we are increasingly placing the emphasis in our institutions upon reform and rehabilitation programs it would not be sensible to commit to these institutions prisoners who are given sentences of only six months, or seven or eight months. The reason is that when one takes into account the automatic remission of sentence and parole considerations which are applicable to reduce the length of a sentence at one end, and when one takes into account the length of time consumed by the classification and admission process at the other end, it works out that of a sentence of even 12 months to only about nine months are actually served in the institution, and that of these nine months as much as six weeks may be taken up by the classification and admission procedures. This means there would be only some seven and a half months available for the man to undergo rehabilitation and reform training, and it is not possible to do a great deal of good, in most cases, in that period.
It was therefore our view that at least the federal statutes should be amended so that no sentences might be imposed between six months and one year, and magistrates and
Supply-J ustice
judges would be asked to consider in their sentencing practices that if only a short sentence is required by way of what one might call a mild retributive punishment a sentence of six months or less would probably be adequate, coupled with, or as an alternative to, a fine, but if that what a man needs is a reform and training program leading to his rehabilitation a sentence of less than 12 months would scarcely permit such a program to be started before the man was due for release, and that therefore it is not sensible to send a man to a federal institution for a period of less than 12 months. That is the thought behind it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the minister if I caused him to repeat something he said this afternoon but I was called out and I promised this gentleman to raise the point. I want to read from this letter:
I asked one official if the above proposal was made to suit the crime or the criminal. He replied neither; it is to suit administration!


Edmund Davie Fulton: Far from it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I continue:
You can imagine the effect of a year's sentence on an inmate under this scheme. He would always be hostile. Because he would believe that he should be doing six months instead of a year. Though he would only do a year in prison the inmate would return to the community as bitter as many men doing a much longer sentence.
From the point of view of those of us who are doing correctional work this type of sentence simply does not make sense. We are able to do a lot for the men who are doing short sentences and at present our correctional program in the gaol at Prince Albert is second to none in Canada. This is not blowing our own horn, but a simple fact. But the services we are now giving to men doing up to two years will be lost under the new act. These services include group work, education, individual counselling, forestry camp projects, agricultural training, rural repair shop training, psychiatric aid, carpentry training, recreational programs, et cetera, et cetera. All of these things have been developed from scratch during the past few years.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I can assure my hon. friend that the writer of that letter is under a very definite misapprehension as to how the act will be amended if this proposal is put into effect because these services will not be lost to men who are serving two years or more but will be available to all those who are sentenced to serve twelve months or more because all these people will go into federal institutions and therefore a training program will be available.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with what the hon. member for Kootenay West said about the present commissioner. In view of what was said last night by the hon. member for Parkdale with

Supply-Justice
which at this moment I am not going to quarrel, I think it should not be forgotten that we have had a good commissioner over these years and that the progress that has been made over these years is because of what was done by the late Ernest Lapointe, before the last war-and which was unhappily interrupted by the war-which was continued by Mr. St. Laurent, Mr. Ilsley and Mr. Garson, something which I think we are all glad the present minister is also continuing.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one or two succinct questions on what might be termed the economic aspects of capital punishment. Perhaps it might be more convenient to the minister if I were to state my questions-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think capital punishment has anything to do with the item under consideration, Mr. Chairman.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, we are discussing item 159. When the hon. member for Skeena spoke he seemed to drift considerably with the tides and wind into what I took to be item 160, and the questions I have are relevant to 160. There has been a considerable amount of discussion about penitentiaries and the operation of penitentiaries, et cetera.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But, Mr. Chairman, executions are not carried out in penitentiaries. I do not think this vote has anything to do with capital punishment at all.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the questions and then you could rule as to whether or not they are relevant?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not if they relate to capital punishment, I submit Mr. Chairman.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has sought to intervene is a new member of this house and we all know him as a devoted member. I think he at least ought to be allowed to state his questions so that you may rule on them without his being suppressed by the minister.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Chairman, I feel I am really on the wrong track if I am being assisted by the hon. member for Essex East, but in spite of that assistance I would like to put my questions and then have you rule as to whether or not they are relevant to this item.
I wanted first of all to get some factual information on the average cost of a hanging and as to whether that is a purely federal or provincial matter?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am unable to answer the question because as I say

capital punishment is not carried out in federal penitentiaries. I am neither able to answer the question nor is it relevant to the item under consideration.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: As a supplementary question, Mr. Minister, may I ask if any consideration is being given-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I suggest to you-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I believe that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond has been answered by the Minister of Justice who says this matter does not come under his jurisdiction and, as it does not, therefore it is not relevant to the item before us.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to see that the minister is not a hangman. Under this item I should like to pursue what I dealt with in my earlier remarks under item 150. Item 159 covers grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies. The amount this year is $75,000 compared with $60,000 last year. My question is this. Are these the same societies previously mentioned by the minister under item 150?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, we are proposing to pay this year $75,000 to recognized prisoners' aid societies. The amount this year last year. There is an increase under this item of $15,000 and an increase under the departmental item which we discussed earlier of $10,000 representing a total increase of $25,000. The organizations to which these grants are paid under the penitentiaries vote are as follows: The John Howard Society of British Columbia, the John Howard Society of Vancouver Island, the John Howard Society of Alberta, the John Howard Society of Saskatchewan, the John Howard Society and Elizabeth Fry Society of Manitoba, the John Howard Society of Ontario, La Society d'Orientation et de Rehabilitation de Montreal, Le Service de Readaptation Sociale de Quebec, the Catholic Rehabilitation Service of Montreal, the John Howard Society of New Brunswick, the John Howard Society of Nova Scotia, the John Howard Society of St. John's, Newfoundland, the Salvation Army Prison Aid Service, the Elizabeth Fry Society of Kingston and the John Howard Society of Quebec.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I am certainly not going to ask the minister for his views on capital punishment but there is one question I should like to ask. It is my understanding that the government of Saskatchewan has informed the minister that in the future it will not permit capital punishment to be exercised in provincial institutions there. If that is correct, what is the decision of the



IS, 1959

[Stage Direction]
minister concerning the use of penitentiaries as such? Is Saskatchewan to be a province where you can feel pretty safe concerning the commutation of sentences?
Edmund Davie Fulton: I am really unable to answer that question because the case has not arisen and, as I suggested already, the question of capital punishment has no relevancy to the item on penitentiaries we are now discussing.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, when the minister answered my earlier remarks I failed to hear him deal with one question I asked. At the present time prisoners are allowed to write four letters a month to relatives. Would the minister give consideration to permitting them to write more?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I certainly could undertake to review that question. We would have to see what the implications might be with respect to staff. I can assure my hon. friend that we have a number of staff problems at the moment and I say that without trying to minimize the human relationship of the problem he has referred to. All I can undertake to do is to have a look at it without at this time being able to make a firm commitment about what we could do.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I do not think this point arose in discussion between the minister and myself but it is my understanding that the length of visits of family or friends to inmates is restricted to one hour.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the maximum period that may be allowed.


Charles Benjamin Howard: What are the total number of hours a day during which visiting is permitted?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, the time during which the prison is open in general is from 9.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.


Charles Benjamin Howard: That would be-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Seven hours.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Seven hours a day, six days a week?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Five days a week.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Thirty-five hours a week;
therefore, he could have a maximum of 35 visits a week?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That would depend entirely on the size of the visiting rooms. The visiting rooms, as I am sure my hon. friend knows from his own visits and inspections of the penitentiaries, accommodate-the	visiting
rooms, I am told, accommodate from 10 to 20 visits simultaneously, each room being partitioned.
Supply-Justice


Charles Benjamin Howard: Perhaps I should have used the words "if only one person visited in a particular area". On a very rough guess, if there is a minimum of 10 visits a day, then you could allow 350 visits a week and I am sure that not all inmates undertake to have visits once a month. I am sure that many of them may have only one or two visits a year, depending on how far away the person's family is from the site of the penitentiary. But it would appear that the argument for not relaxing the number of visits per month has not too much of a base, if this is the case. For instance, I take the case of Kingston itself. Unless you had the visiting area full of its maximum number of inmates for every hour if all of the visits were allowed, then you would have a problem of not being able to relax or extend the visits. I am sure that is not the case. For instance, in Kingston there are many times when the visiting room is not full. I am sure there may be times when no one is visiting any of the inmates at all. The minister nods his head. I take that to mean that what I am saying is substantially correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, but our difficulty is that we have to take account of the peak period. For instance, most visitors come in the afternoon between two and four. If we could insist humanely that visits be spread equally over all the day, then we could probably physically accommodate more than one visit a month; but we cannot compel or regiment the times at which relatives wish to visit an inmate. We therefore have to take account of the fact that there will be great peak periods. Unless we restrict the number of visits, you will find that some inmates cannot receive even as many as one visit a month because of the fact that visitors tend to come at peak times.


Charles Benjamin Howard: But you do restrict and regiment the number of times they can come during the month, and the hours of the day during which they can come and the length of time during which the visitor can remain on the premises? You restrict and regiment the facilities which exist in so far as the visit is concerned. I understand there must be certain restrictions and certain requirements with respect to the visitors because of the fear that some weapon may be passed to the inmate. We do know there is a very close watch kept on the physical contact between the inmate and his wife, or vice versa.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We do not write to a proposed visitor or prospective visitor and say you may come only between, let us say, nine and ten in the morning on such and such a day. We do endeavour so far as possible to allow the visits to take place when the visitors wish

Supply-Justice
to come. They will be in touch with the institution and with the inmates and will do their best to arrange a time which is convenient to them, and we try to accommodate them at that time. We find that in order to accommodate visitors we have to take account of the fact that there are peak periods. We have not yet been able to devise a system of more than one visit a month, but when our accommodation problem is lessened we shall be able to have another look at that.


Mr, Howard:: I was not suggesting that you write to the prospective visitor and say, "You have to be here at two o'clock" or anything of that nature, but you do restrict the period of time within the day during which a visit can take place, and that is between nine and four o'clock. That is the restriction I was talking about. What I was leading up to was this. Even though your peak periods may be in the afternoon and your slack periods may be in the morning, I think you could make some arrangement and allow this even if it is on a special basis. There will be special problems with respect to visiting facilities, and the inmate overcrowding problem is such that you are not able to say: "We will allow two visits a month". You could not cope with that. I am sure you could, even under those crowded conditions, make special arrangements in particular cases between the inmate and his relative so that the relative who wanted to come to visit could do so. You could then arrange a satisfactory time which might be in the morning in so far as the extra visit is concerned. I am quite sure that could be done without too much difficulty, and you would not then, as you say, be entering into the field of regimenting visitors and say that they have to come at a certain hour. You could work it out in a mutually satisfactory way so far as a visit beyond the normal one visit per month is concerned. I hope that some arrangement along these lines can be made for inmates who desire to have or are able to have more than one visitor per month.
I would also suggest and also think that the number of letters that an inmate is permitted to write to relatives may be extended to people who may be close friends but are not relatives. That could be given consideration also. The question of more relaxed circumstances as between the relationship of the visitor and the person he is visiting could be looked into and some arrangements made along that line similar to that which exists in the institution at Chino, California, where there is a very relaxed, informal, almost picnic arrangement between the inmate and his wife and children who come to visit him. I am quite sure if we could

move into the direction of relaxing the rigidity of restrictions and the rules that apply to physical contact between the inmate and the person who came to visit him, along with additional letters, you might assist somewhat in hastening the rehabilitating and reforming process of the inmate and make him feel perhaps a little more accepted and less fit and less upset by his incarceration and all the things that surround him. I hope the minister will be able to move in this direction as quickly as possible and allow more letters and more relaxed conditions in so far as visits are concerned. So far as is humanely possible, he should relax the limit of one visit per month for one hour.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes; I realize to some extent that we perhaps have been talking at cross purposes, because I have been discussing the rule of general application. Because of the accommodation problems and the physical condition of the majority of the buildings which we have, I am bound to think of institutions such as Kingston and St. Vincent de Paul. My hon. friend says he hopes we will move in this direction. I should like him to go and look at the William Head and Valley-field institutions. These are new institutions. If he does that he will see that exactly what he has been talking is being followed in these institutions. The conditions and atmosphere there are much more relaxed, with minimum security and the men have relatively much more freedom to move about as they will. These, as I point out, are experimental stations. This is the type of new institution toward which we want to move and which it is our intention to bring about. In what I have been saying previously I have been thinking of the present circumstances under which we have to operate in the majority of our institutions.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I regret intruding into this conversation. I wonder whether I can ask the minister what is the average cost to maintain a prisoner for one year in federal penal institutions?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The average cost for everything-I am having some arithmetic done- including salaries of staff was $5.66 a day. I am having some arithmetic done to arrive at the annual figure.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: While the minister is working on his arithmetic-


Edmund Davie Fulton: It appears to be $2,064.42 according to the latest figure we have.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: When there is commutation of a sentence of hanging and it is changed to life imprisonment, what would the average period of time be in years before the prisoner would be paroled?



Edmund Davie Fulton: My answer has to be that there is no average period. It would depend entirely on each case and the reports that were made by the prison authorities, and from now on it will depend on the decision made by the national parole board based on their review of the case.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Could the minister perhaps indicate the range, for example, the smallest number of years and the maximum number of years? I am trying to get a rough indication. I do not want to try to pin the minister down but simply to get a rough idea.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I regret that the penitentiaries branch does not have these statistics. The remission service or the new parole board, which items have been passed, would have had these figures.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I should like to ask one more question. I went at the matter backwards and I seem to be having more success this way. With respect to the penitentiaries already in existence, is any consideration being given to establishing a central execution chamber using either gas or electricity?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have already explained and am sorry to have to repeat that it is not part of the authority or responsibility of the federal penitentiaries system to carry out executions and I am unable to answer that question.


Charles Edward Rea: The Chair has already ruled on that matter.


Mr. Regnier:: I should like to ask the minister if any consideration has ever been given to trying to make prisoners self-supporting?


Edmund Davie Fulton: To what?


Laurier Arthur Régnier: To make prisoners self-supporting so they can earn their keep in the same way as those who live outside prison walls.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Prisoners who work in the prisons are paid a daily amount for their work but I will not pretend for a moment that it actually enables them to be selfsupporting. I might point out to the committee that one of the reforms made this year which the penitentiaries branch has been quite anxious to see brought about is incorporated in the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which were given third reading today whereby an inmate who was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits at the time of his com-mital to penitentiary no longer automatically forfeits those benefits by virtue of time spent in prison. Therefore, in a number of cases, and we hope an increasingly large
Supply-Justice
number, a discharged inmate will be entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits until such time as he becomes reestablished in employment. We feel that will be a forward step in assisting released or paroled inmates to re-establish themselves in civil life.


Mr. Weichel:: I should like to ask the minister how many penitentiaries there are under his jurisdiction?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are just trying to figure out the ones under construction. Those now in operation number nine and two satellites. There are two under construction.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the minister tell me how many prisoners are now in penitentiaries whose capital sentences have been commuted in the last two years?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the question had been raised under the remission service item I could have given the answer straight away but we do not have it here in that form for the last two years. It will be necessary to find out how many cases have been commuted in the last two years and then I could answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one question I should like to ask. Did the figure which the minister gave for board and lodging include clothing and depreciation and overhead so far as the buildings are concerned?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am informed it includes all clothing but no depreciation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does include the salaries of the staff?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, that is correct.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I should like to express one thought with respect to the general import of the question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. I hope he was not trying to place a dollar value on human lives in the question he asked.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, surely this is outrageously out of order. If the hon. member was not allowed to ask his question it is an outrage for some other hon. member to be allowed to get up and make comments on the question he was not allowed to ask.


Charles Benjamin Howard: My friend is probably just becoming impatient for one of the following items to be reached.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I just like to see a little justice around here.


Charles Benjamin Howard: My friend, coming from the province he does and talking about justice-


Charles Edward Rea: Order.

Supply-Justice


Charles Benjamin Howard: I hope the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond was not trying to establish that we should place a dollar value on human lives and determine whether it is cheaper-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member is making reference to capital punishment.


Charles Benjamin Howard: No, I am not making reference to capital punishment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The earlier observation was with reference to capital punishment and I submit that the discussion is out of order.


Charles Benjamin Howard: One question asked related to the cost of keeping an inmate in a penitentiary and how long he might stay there if his sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment. I assume the follow-up is to connect that with what might have happened to the person who is an inmate. I regret that this question was not raised under another item so that we could have cleared it up completely. Perhaps it is a case of misunderstanding on my part but it did raise that question in my mind. I am not trying to say that is what the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond meant or implied or said but it did raise that question in my mind. I regret that the hon. member is not here now to clear up that question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure he did not mean that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
160. 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, $12,705,059.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the
minister what the reason is for the very marked reduction as shown in the details in the cost of operation and maintenance in the province of Newfoundland. Is it that there are so many fewer prisoners?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am happy to be able to advise my hon. friend that the number of prisoners maintained in Newfoundland has gone down from over 40 to 29.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is done with female prisoners in Newfoundland? Are there any?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are none at the present time under our jurisdiction with sentences of two years or more, and I do not know whether there are any under provincial responsibility.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the rather unusual circumstances in which there would be a female prisoner sentenced to two years or more, what would happen? I think that is largely a hypothetical question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand that there are some accommodations under the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities in Newfoundland for female prisoners and under the arrangement we have with the government of Newfoundland female prisoners would stay in Newfoundland and be looked after by the provincial authorities to whom we would pay compensation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say what these arrangements are and where that place is because at one stage I had something to do with some negotiations with respect to getting a building for women prisoners? At that time, on the rare occasion when a woman was sentenced in Newfoundland, they had no place in which to confine her and they just let her go. The provincial authorities were trying to find some place for women prisoners. I was genuinely interested in finding out whether anything had happened.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not had any indications from or discussions with the Newfoundland authorities on that question. I do not recall that the attorney general raised it when we had our conference last October. We had a very general discussion regarding the arrangements in effect between us, but it was my understanding that Newfoundland was quite satisfied with the present arrangements. I am informed that they have some arrangement in the prison at St. John's for accommodating women prisoners. I am not aware that they are not satisfied, and I have had no complaints.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are no federal women prisoners in Newfoundland at all, then?


Edmund Davie Fulton: None at the moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are all of those male prisoners who were sentenced to over two years kept in the penitentiary in N ewf oundland ?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand they are either in the prison at St. John's or the camp at Salmonier.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say what amount is paid to the province for the custody of each of these prisoners?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is $5.60 per day; that is the price at which other prisoners are maintained. I understand it is six cents below the price paid-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Six cents below?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is six cents below the price paid elsewhere.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nothing is paid for rent because the minister has just told us-


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is just the cost.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, these people are being kept by the province of Newfoundland rent free.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I don't know what my hon. friend means by rent free. It includes all the cost of what would otherwise be described as board, lodging, clothing, staff salaries, and so on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister did not understand the purport of my earlier question. I asked him if that item that was mentioned included any allowance for overhead or building depreciation, and he said no. Now, he has just told us it costs $5.60-


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is heat and so on; that would be a rent factor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not talking about heat and light; I do not regard them as rent. It costs $5.66 a day per head, and actually Newfoundland is only paid $5.60. The $5.66 includes no amount for accommodation and, as I said, therefore it would appear that these prisoners are being kept by the government of Newfoundland rent free.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This rate has been revised from time to time, and this is the arrangement which has been in effect for many years. I am sorry it has taken my hon. friend this long to find out about it. I am surprised that he should only become exercised about it after there has been a change of government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not in the least exercised about it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You seem to be quite concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I imagine before the inflation, for which the hon. gentleman's colleague is responsible, that cost on the mainland was probably about $5.25 per day in which circumstance the $5.60 would probably have included some little allowance for rental.
There was one other point about which I wanted to ask the minister. Is there a long term agreement with the government of Newfoundland or what is the nature of the agreement?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am informed it is a written agreement, approved by order in council here and in Newfoundland, and it has effect until some other arrangement is agreed upon by the two governments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the government any thought of bringing this arrangement to an
Supply-Justice
end and looking after prisoners in the way in which they are looked after in all the other provinces?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We will be looking into that when we get the over-all report from the correctional planning committee, with recommendations for a long term building program for federal penal institutions in Canada. There is no thought of a revision at the present time, and we are not being pressed in that direction at all by the government of Newfoundland.


Mr. Creaghan:: I have a couple of questions for the minister on this item. In recent months I have noticed quite a lot of advertisements for instructors for the penal staff, particularly at the Dorchester institution. I wonder if the minister could indicate to the committee if this staff will, in any way, be associated with training new men for the proposed institution at Springhill and, secondly, if the commissioner and the minister will give the senior employees at Dorchester, those who have given long years of service to his department, at least a fair opportunity of getting some of the senior positions in the new institution?
Another point I should like to mention concerns housing for those presently employed at Dorchester.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I could answer these two questions asked so far, because the answer to both questions is yes.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: That more or less takes the questions out of my mind, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister for his interest in the matter. I hope that if he comes to Dorchester in the immediate future he will not only inspect the institution but will also take an interest in the housing accommodation, which I must admit is no credit to his department.


Gabriel Roberge: I note that according to pages 227 and 228 in the blue book there is an increase of 150 in the number of personnel under this item. Is the committee to understand that the reason for that increase is the same as that which the minister gave when we started discussing the first item of penitentiaries?


Edmund Davie Fulton: This item results very largely from the necessity of providing staff for Joyceville, which, as I stated, will be coming into operation this fall, as well as the necessity for providing staff for the increased prison population at other institutions. Then, there are certain specialists whom we are recruiting in so far as we are able to find persons with the proper qualifications.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Justice
161. Construction, improvements and equipment, $6,058,571.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the minister could tell us precisely what buildings are being constructed at the present time? There is a list on page 230, but it is not very illuminating.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the list of the actual number of buildings under construction is very extensive. I would be prepared to provide it if my hon. friend wishes it, but I wonder if he does not wish to know at what points major construction is taking place?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the first question I should ask the minister is, does the department pay for these small buildings that are constructed to house the small detachments of police in many parts of the country?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think my hon. friend would have to wait for that information until we reach the Royal Canadian Mounted Police item. This relates only to penitentiary construction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be quite interested in knowing how many buildings have been started since the minister became minister, if he could list those-that is major projects, and where they are?


Edmund Davie Fulton: At St. Vincent de Paul we are building a new institution which, as I said, is very much along the lines of the one still under construction at Joyceville, and also at St. Vincent de Paul there is a major dormitory building which will be able to accommodate 104 inmates. At Valleyfield we have taken over and are in the process of renovating and altering an army camp there as a satellite institution for St. Vincent de Paul. At William Head, there was the takeover, remodelling and alteration of the old quarantine buildings formerly occupied or owned or at least administered by the Department of National Health and Welfare. In addition to that, there is a sizeable dormitory building within the present area of the Prince Albert penitentiary accommodating some sixty inmates. Then there was the conversion of a building at Stony Mountain to provide dormitory accommodation for some fifty inmates, as I recall it. There was the complete new kitchen building in the existing institution at Kingston penitentiary; a large dairy barn at Collins Bay; a new piggery building for the farm at Dorchester, $20,000; a new shop building at Manitoba penitentiary, eventually $60,000, $20,000 in this year's estimates; a warehouse building in British Columbia, total cost about $30,000, $15,000 in this year's estimates. That is the type of building. There are three of what I might call major new

institutions or satellite institutions. St. Vincent de Paul, William Head, Valleyfield, and Springhill definitely will be available this year by way of new or satellite institutions. There are other buildings of the type I have detailed which are by way of addition or alteration to existing institutions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are a few questions I should like to ask about some of these matters. Perhaps the minister would like to answer them as we go along.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friend is asking a question he might follow the usual custom of rising in his place.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should be glad to do so. I am so accustomed to being in these numerous committees in other parts of the building where we do not have to stand up-in fact, if we do so, we never get a chance to speak- that I failed to do so in this instance. At St. Vincent de Paul there is a complete new institution. Can the minister tell me what the department's estimate was of the cost of these buildings, what the successful tender was and whether there was a single tender for the whole institution?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The departmental estimate of the total cost is, I am advised, approximately $5 million. There was provided in last year's estimates $800,000 and there is provided in this year's main estimates $3,340,000. It is not feasible to build institutions of this type under one general contract or to have all phases of construction proceeding at the same time. Therefore there are a number of individual contracts let, in some cases for individual sections of the building and in other cases for the installation of the general heating plant after the building is erected and also for equipment and so on to operate the machine shops and so on. Hence, there will be a series of individual contracts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister give the committee a list of these contracts and the dates on which they were awarded?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall be glad to have a list compiled and to furnish it before the conclusion of the discussion of my estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to have some information with respect to the dormitory at St. Vincent de Paul. The Valleyfield business, of course, is just reconstruction and I should be quite satisfied if we could have the departmental estimate of the total amount of the contracts and the same for William Head and for Prince Albert. In every case I should like to know whether there was just one contract or whether there were several contracts and what the reason was in each case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course, a fair proportion of this building is being done by our own inmate labour.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, the minister can indicate that fact also. We have been told in another place by experts in the field of public works-and this is, of course, as Your Honour will readily appreciate, the reason why I am asking these questions-that under proper procedures, with proper building methods, the complete plan is prepared and one contract is called from one contractor for the whole of the institution and that any other way of doing things is wasteful, extravagant and wrong. We had a good deal of testimony to that effect in another place in another session of parliament. It is therefore only natural that we should be interested in finding out whether these principles that were enunciated to us are being followed by the Department of Justice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course, my hon. friend will remember that on both sides of the house there was pressure-and it was proper pressure-to institute immediate programs of work. It was our objective, which we realized in accordance, to let contracts for the construction of these buildings just as soon as plans for any particular section could be prepared and brought to the position where a contract could be let. If my hon. friend is suggesting that we should have delayed-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member will allow me to do my own suggesting.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I have the floor now because the hon. member gave it to me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If there is any suggestion that we should have delayed in the awarding of contracts and the providing of employment until the plans for the building of the whole thing were prepared I wish my hon. friend would say so. I think he will agree that would be inconsistent with the position formerly taken.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no intention of saying anything about that matter until I have the information so that I can formulate some view as to whether or not there is any prima facie case. There were arguments made, of course, in another place, in other circumstances, about another building of precisely the same character, and for precisely the same reasons that the hon. gentleman has given now. I should think that if they were valid in one case they would be valid in the other. But their validity can be determined only by an examination of
Supply-Justice
the facts and not by theory. That was, of course, the view that I took in another place. I am not making any suggestions or any insinuations. I am seeking information.
I think it would be desirable to have the same information about this conversion project at Stony Mountain which sounds as though it would be quite a large one; for the kitchen at Kingston; and for the dairy barn at Collin's Bay. I do not know about the piggery. Piggeries have an important place in the history of confederation, it is true. Perhaps it would be as well to have the information for the piggery also and for the warehouse in British Columbia. What I am seeking to point out is that here we are voting a considerable sum of money to let, as we are told, a number of contracts as soon as the plans can be drawn up in order to provide employment as quickly as possible. It is our duty here in the committee of supply to get all the information we can in order to make sure that the taxpayers' money is being spent to the best possible advantage. If we could have about all those projects information of the kind that I suggest, I think it would be very helpful to the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I cannot give the exact dates
when these contracts were let, but I think this is up to March 28 of this year. Administrative building No. 1, estimated cost, $250,000; contract let for $213,000, actual cost below estimate of some $37,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was there one contract for that whole building?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. Hospital and chapel
building No. 2 and accommodation building No. 3, let on a single contract; estimated cost $1,950,000, contract let for $1,574,000, or a saving as compared with the estimate of nearly $400,000.
Stores building No. 9 together with maintenance shop building No. 10, let as a single contract; estimated cost $230,000, contract let for $226,770.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister give
the dates of these contracts?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. I am sorry, but I have
not got the dates here. I am informed that this is up to about March 28 of this year. These contracts were let since November 24, 1958, the ones I have just mentioned. Automotive building No. 11, estimated cost $140,000; contract let for $158,844; power plant, building No. 12, steam generator plant and radial brick chimney; these were originally estimated to be let in one contract for $600,000, but we have let two contracts, the

Supply-Justice
power plant building No. 12 for $225,420 and the steam generator plant and radial brick chimney for $268,194.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say why
two contracts were let in this case?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Because the building can go
ahead much more quickly than the boiler plant can. The total of contracts let to date on this table is $2,666,228 and there have been six separate contracts let.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall this item
carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. This is just the first of the many building projects about which the minister intends to give us information.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Since we are obviously trying
to fill in time until it is ten o'clock-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a point of order. I asked the minister a question which really has something to do with the estimate, unlike many of the questions which have been raised by hon. members, and now we are told that we are just trying to put in time. We are trying to get information.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am sorry if I gathered the impression I did. However, I wonder if I might make my comments at this point. In view of the substantial building project that has been undertaken by the department- work amounting to $6 million-I want to add my words to those of the hon. member for Parkdale the other day when he urged the government to give consideration to the improvement of the probation and parole service. A great deal of probation work could be undertaken for the $6 million which is mentioned here. Even the increase in this year's vote of $1,500,000 could provide a probation service for 5,000 people. It has been shown in other systems outside Canada that a great many of the people who are actually in institutions do not need to be there and that if the proper investigations were made in the first instance a good many people would not be confined in public places. I would also ask the department to set up a parole-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. We are on vote No. 161 which pertains to construction, improvement and equipment and it would appear that the hon. member is out of order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am attempting to show that instead of spending a lot of money on large building projects we could more usefully spend money on probation and parole services, and I urge that upon the minister at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the minister could give us a little of this information this evening, because we do not wish to waste time; we are all anxious to see the session over.


Edmund Davie Fulton: 1 have provided the information for which the hon. gentleman asked with regard to St. Vincent de Paul, though I have not been able to discover what use he is able to make of that information. I have indicated I am prepared to get the other information which he wants, but the hon. member will appreciate that there is a good deal of detailed information of this kind. If he had asked earlier I might have been able to produce it, but in these circumstances it will be necessary for me to ask my officials to compile the information, and I will be glad to table it or to hand it to the hon. gentleman at any time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say that I am somewhat astonished that the minister should have even raised any question-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I raised no question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister seems to forget the position he is in. He is responsible to this house. He is asking for large sums of public money to spend. He is a suppliant before the House of Commons, and it is precisely none of his business why we want this information. That is our business, and we are answerable to our constituents and not to the Minister of Justice as long as we continue to have a free parliament; though some of us, at times, in the light of some of the answers given from the treasury benches begin to have some doubts about that.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: That is plain nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Carle-ton is an expert in nonsense, plain and varnished.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have been observing the hon. gentleman.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wish you would just give me a moment, Mr. Chairman. I well understand the reason for the hon. gentleman's outburst, but it is totally unjustified. I have not refused to obtain any information. I said I would be delighted to get the information although neither I nor any other member- perhaps I should not say "any other member"-knows what he wants it for. I realize that if the hon. member wants it I have to produce it, and I have undertaken to do so. There is no reason for the hon. member's outburst, because I have not declined to produce this information. But we get a little tired of these lectures from hon.

gentlemen opposite who forget that it was they who, over the years, showed such a disregard for parliament.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the leader of the house would be so kind as to indicate what the revised list will be for next week?


Howard Charles Green: We shall commence with a supply motion on Monday and then take the business I outlined last night. When we come to take estimates we shall commence
Business of the House
with those of the Department of Justice and then take those of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister any idea at this stage when we would start with the estimates. Would there be estimates on Thursday or would we go on with legislation on Thursday? The house is not sitting on Friday and it would be convenient to know.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say at the moment. It would depend on what progress we make with the legislation.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

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

Mr. Howard: 1.	As of December 1, 1958, what was the aggregate inmate population in each of the penitentiaries under federal jurisdiction?
2.	Of these, how many have been classified as mentally ill, upon what date was each classification made, and what hospital and security facilities are available for them?
3.	During the past five years have any difficulties been experienced in transferring mentally ill inmates to mental hospitals, and if so, what are the details surrounding these difficulties?
4.	What is the aggregate number of cells available in each penitentiary?
5.	Are any dormitories used, and if so, with respect to each penitentiary?
(a)	As of December 31, 1958, how many inmates were sleeping in dormitories?
(b)	Were any corridors or other similar area used, temporary buildings constructed, shop space or other buildings converted for such dormitories and what are the details in each case?
6.	For each month during the past five years how many inmates in each penitentiary were sentenced by penitentiary officials to (a) the lash; (b) the paddle, and how many lashes or paddles were given in each case and what was the offence?
7.	During the past five years have any inmates (a) attempted, or (b) committed, suicide, and if so, how many in each case, what method was used and were any of these mentally ill?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of
Justice):
1.	Dorchester, 741; federal training centre, 427; St. Vincent de Paul, 1,366; Kingston, 1,135; Collin's Bay, 463; Manitoba, 465; Saskatchewan, 688; British Columbia, 755; Newfoundland, 24. Total: 6,064.
In addition there were 70 inmates carried on the registers who were outside; 58 were in provincial mental hospitals; 4 were hospitalized for medical treatment under temporary ticket of leave; 8 were out by court order.
2.	There were 13 inmates who had been classified as mentally ill as of December 1, 1958. Eight have since been admitted to pro-vincal mental hospitals and five have recovered sufficiently to be retained in the penitentiaries. While awaiting transfer inmates are under care and supervision in the penitentiary hospitals.
3.	In several provinces there has been some delay from time to time in accepting mentally ill patients due to overcrowding in the provincial mental hospitals.
4.	Dorchester, 775; federal training centre, 108; St. Vincent de Paul, 1200; Kingston,
939; Collin's Bay, 382; Manitoba, 494; Saskatchewan, 679; British Columbia, 594. Total: 5171.
5.	Permanent dormitories have been constructed at the following institutions-Joyce-ville, 48 beds; federal training centre, 400 beds (6 beds per room); Collin's Bay, 2 dormitories (50 beds each); Kingston, 1 dormitory (42 beds); St. Vincent de Paul, 1 dormitory (120 beds); British Columbia, 2 dormitories (58 beds each). Total: 826.
(a)	As of December 31, 1958, 1171 inmates were sleeping in dormitories.
(b)	Temporary dormitories either in shop space or corridors to accommodate the numbers shown were in use at the following institutions-Dorchester, 13; St. Vincent de Paul, 122; Kingston, 184; Saskatchewan, 60; British Columbia, 94; Collin's Bay, 8.
6.	From fiscal year 1953-54 to and including 1957-58: (a) None; (b) Following.

Fiscal Year 1953-54
Dorchester, 1 (a); federal training centre, 11 (b); St. Vincent de Paul, 4 (c); Kingston, 4 (d); Saskatchewan, 2 (e).
(a)	Offence:	Escaping legal custody, 7
strokes.
(b)	Offences: 6 cases, gross indecency (5 strokes respectively); 3 cases, collective mass defiance of constituted authority (2 inmates, 10 strokes; 1 inmate, 5 strokes); 2 eases, refusal to comply with orders in presence of others and causing disturbance (5 strokes).
(c)	Offences: 3 cases, assaulting an officer (10, 8, 5 strokes respectively); 1 case, while in dissociation cell caused a disturbance and induced others to do likewise (8 strokes).
(d)	Offences: 3 cases: threatening an officer (5 strokes respectively); 1 case, destroying government property while in dissociation cells (5 strokes).
(e)	Offences: 1 case, attacking an inmate with a knife (6 strokes); 1 case, attacking a young inmate and threatening language to an officer (8 strokes).

Fiscal Year 1954-55
Dorchester, 3 (a); federal training centre, 44 (b); St. Vincent de Paul, 4 (c); Kingston, 7 (d); Collin's Bay, 1 (e); Saskatchewan, 2 (f); British Columbia, 9 (g).
(a)	Offences: 3 cases, escaping legal custody (7, 6, 6 strokes respectively);
(b)	Offences: 4 cases, plotting to escape (5 strokes respectively); 40 cases, for participating in a major disturbance, causing heavy damage to government property in

August, 1954, and personal violence to either officers or inmates (14 received 10 strokes; 1 received 9; 20 received 7; and 5 received 5).
(c)	Offences: 2 cases, assaulting an officer (8 and 5 strokes); 2 cases, wilfully flooding their cells and breaking government property (5 strokes).
(d)	Offences: 1 case, wilfully destroying government property (5 strokes); 1 case, inciting collective action or disturbance and damaging government property (10 strokes); 1 case, persistent refusals to go to work over a period of time (7 strokes); 4 cases, while in segregation in east cell block raised a collective disturbance, and destroying government property (2 received 15 strokes; the others, 10 strokes).
(e)	Offence: stabbing an inmate with a knife (5 strokes).
(f)	Offence: assaulting an officer (10 strokes and 6 strokes respectively).
(g)	Offences: 1 case, gross personal violence to an officer (8 strokes); 5 cases, inciting others to a disturbance and destroying government property (6 strokes in each case); 1 case, threatening an officer with a water bucket (6 strokes); 1 case, destroying government property (6 strokes); 1 case, offensive language to an officer and destroying government property (6 strokes).

Fiscal Year 1955-56
Federal training centre, 9 (a); St. Vincent de Paul, 8 (b); Kingston; 1 (c); Saskatchewan, 19 (d).
(a)	Offences: 1 case, causing a major disturbance (5 strokes); 4 cases, threatening action to officers, insolence, inciting others to do likewise (3 received 5 strokes, 1 received 8 strokes); 1 case, refusing to obey orders and threatening officers (7 strokes);
1 case, threatening an officer with a knife' causing bodily wounds to an inmate (8' strokes); 1 case, conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline, damage to government property (6 strokes); 1 case, while in dissociation refused orders, insolence, causing other inmates to make noise (6 strokes).
(b)	Offences: 4 cases, assaulting an officer (1 received 10 strokes, 1 received 6 strokes, and 2 received 5 strokes); 1 case, escaping custody in a row boat (6 strokes); 1 case, assaulting an inmate and destroying government property (5 strokes); 1 case, inciting others to cause a disturbance (8 strokes);
1 case, violence to an officer and spitting in his face (7 strokes);
(c)	Offence:	assaulting an officer (7
strokes).
Questions
(d)	Offences: 3 cases, creating a disturbance and damaging government property (8 strokes); 8 cases, in connivance with others did cause a serious disturbance in the range against good order and discipline (7 received 4 strokes; 1 received 5 strokes); 3 cases, gross insubordination requiring extraordinary means (1 received 5 strokes and 2 received 8 strokes); 2 cases, grossly offensive language to an officer during a disturbance (8 strokes, 4 strokes); 1 case, assaulting an officer (6 strokes); 2 cases, grossly offensive language to an officer and damaging government property (10 and 8 strokes).

Fiscal Year 1956-57
Dorchester, 13(a); federal training centre, 5(b); St. Vincent de Paul, 1(c); Saskatchewan, 8(d); British Columbia, 6(e).
(a)	Offences: 13 cases, engaging in collective action and disturbance with other inmates to the prejudice of good order and discipline and safety to the institution. (9 received 10 strokes; 4 received 4 strokes).
(b)	Offences: 2 cases, act of gross indecency (6 strokes); 1 case, threatening officers with a knife (6 strokes); 1 case, disrupting good order and discipline by inciting others to follow suit (6 strokes); 1 case, while under dissociation, incited others to cause a disturbance (6 strokes).
(c)	Offence:	assaulting an officer (5
strokes).
(d)	Offences: 2 cases, escaping legal custody (6 strokes); 3 cases, wilfully damaging government property (2 received 7 strokes; 1 received 6 strokes); 2 cases, gross personal violence to an officer (7 strokes); 1 case, causing a disturbance while in dissociation and destroying government property (7 strokes).
(e)	Offences: 4 cases, assaulting an officer (15, 8, 8, and 5 strokes respectively); 1 case, stabbing another inmate with a knife (6 strokes); 1 case, wilfully destroying government property (5 strokes).

Fiscal year 1957-58
Dorchester, 1(a); St. Vincent de Paul, 3(b); Kingston, 2(c); Collin's Bay, 4(d); British Columbia, 3(e).
(a)	Offence:	assaulting an officer (10
strokes).
(b)	Offences: 3 cases, assaulting an officer (10 strokes, 6 strokes and 5 strokes respectively).
(c)	Offences: 1 case, attacking an officer with a razor blade (6 strokes); 1 case, wilfully destructive of government property and threatening action towards officer (8 strokes).

Supply-Items Passed
(d)	Offences: 4 cases, assaulting an officer <8, 6, 6 and 5 strokes respectively).
(e)	Offences: 2 cases, attempting to escape (5 strokes respectively); 1 case, assaulting an inmate (5 strokes).
7.	(a) 17 (8 were mental cases). Method: hanging 10; drinking Brazilian oil, 1; slashing wrist or throat, 6.
(b) 20 (13 were mental cases). Method: hanging 17; swallowing sharp object, 1; slashing throat, 1; swallowing barbiturates, 1).


BEECHWOOD LOAN
Mr. McWilliams: What is the total amount that will be paid in interest charges on the $29.5 million Beechwood loan, estimated on the basis that all payments as to principal and interest will be met on due dates?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
Including the payment already made on April 8, 1959-$5,371,867.88.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
149.	Departmental administration including annual contribution of $200 to the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada, $741,825.
150.	Parole Act administration, including $60,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies as may be approved by treasury board, $344,531.
Supreme Court of Canada-
151.	Administration, $218,599.
Exchequer Court of Canada-
152.	Administration, $131,898.
Northwest Territories-
153.	Administration of justice in the Northwest Territories, including the Northwest Territories territorial court, $107,440.
Yukon Territory-
154.	Administration of justice in the Yukon Territory including the Yukon territorial court, $123,397.
155.	Payments of gratuities to the widows or other dependents of judges who die while in office, $20,000.
Combines Investigation Act-
156.	Restrictive trade practices commission,
[Stage Direction]
157.	Office of investigation and research, $452,109.
158.	Bankruptcy Act administration, $52,620.
B-Penitentiaries
[Stage Direction]
159.	Administration of the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries, including $75,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by the treasury board, $572,678.
160.	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, $12,705,059.
A-Department-
523.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $49,565.
524.	Parole Act administration-further amount required, $144,900.
Northwest Territories-
525.	Administration of justice in the Northwest Territories, including the Northwest Territories territorial court-further amount required, $3,300.
B-Penitentiaries-
526.	Administration of the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries-further amount reqquired, $24,422.
527.	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, $932,918.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 22, 1959