1959-06-24

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on privileges and elections-Mr. Macquarrie.
Second and third reports of standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Macnaughton.
(Translation):

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, today our Frenchspeaking fellow Canadians are celebrating St. John the Baptist day, in honour of their patron saint. I am sure that all hon. members of this house will join me in tendering them our best wishes.
Today's celebrations, and those which have taken place these last few days, recall to our fellow Canadians of French origin their past and the glorious events of their history. We associate ourselves wholeheartedly in those celebrations.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself and my party with the words just spoken by the Prime Minister.
This year, we are observing the second centenary of the association of the two main racial groups in our country, an association which has marked the real start of the Canadian nation, as we know it today. On this occasion, it is only fair that we who speak a different language and have different traditions render a special tribute to our Frenchspeaking fellow-citizens in recognizing their vital contribution to our country's progress, to the flowering of a strong and free nation united in diversity.
This year the day is especially eventful in that the Queen of Canada is present in Canada on the occasion of the celebration of French Canadians' patron saint's day.
(Text);
May I also remind the house, Mr. Speaker, that St. John's day is being celebrated in another part of Canada as a very special day. r refer to Newfoundland, which has its own
66968-9-322
proud traditions, its own ancient heritage, which it protects and cherishes in the Canadian family.
(Translation):


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I confess to some difficulty in expressing myself in the beautiful French language.
(Text):
Since I did not have the benefit of any prior announcement or prior consultation, I shall have to ask the indulgence of the house to proceed in Canada's other official language. On behalf of the C.C.F. group, I would say we wish to associate ourselves with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in paying our tribute to French Canadians at this time in their celebration of this very important occasion.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Benidickson: What are the advantages for the treasury in the design of the June 15 prospectus respecting two very short term government of Canada bond issues wherein "issued prices" are at a discount of 2 per cent and 3 7/10 per cent rather than at par, although the prospectus states the short term bonds at the issue price are to yield 5.50 per cent and 5.68 per cent respectively to maturity?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, when bonds such as these are being issued for any short term, it is considered very much to the advantage both of the issuing authority and the market that they be made to coincide with outstanding issues rather than create more issues outstanding for a short period. The market is familiar with the issues that are outstanding, and it is considered advisable in these cases simply to enlarge the outstanding issues rather than create new ones.


CHARTERED BANKS CREDIT PLANS
^-Mr. Benidickson: 1.	Did the bank of Montreal or the bank of Nova Scotia seek the advice of the Minister of Finance or the inspector-general of banks or other finance department officers about the legality or propriety of their plans, having regard to section 91 of the

Starred Questions
Bank Act before recently announcing respectively these banks' "consumers consolidated credit plan" and the "Scotia plan cheque-credit" plan?
2.	If so, what advice was provided to these banks by the Minister of Finance or other officials acting under his jurisdiction?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, so far as the minister is concerned there was no consultation on this subject whatever. So far as the inspector general of banks is concerned, I may say that he informs me that the banks have consulted with him from time to time on the procedure for personal loan plans, and that in all cases he has instructed them that they should obtain the advice of counsel as to the legality of any plans they propose to operate. In each case the bank has been advised by counsel, before putting its plan into operation, that the plan is not a violation of the Bank Act.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-APPOINTMENT OF MISSION HEADS
Mr. Cardin: 1.	How many heads of missions have been appointed since June, 1957, and to what countries?
2.	In how many posts abroad is Canada not now represented by a head of mission?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is 37 in the following countries. Unless hon. members wish these countries read off, I could simply put the list in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: The answer to the second question is eight.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the list of countries be printed without being read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note:	The list of countries referred to above is	as follows;]
Argentina	New Zealand
Belgium	Norway
Ceylon	Pakistan
Colombia	Peru
Denmark	Spain
France- (embassy)	Sweden
-(NATO)	Turkey
Germany	Union of South Africa
Ghana	United Arab Republic
Greece	United Kingdom
India	United States of America
Indonesia	-(Boston)
Iran	- (Chicago)
Israel	-(New York)
Italy	-(Washington)
Japan	Venezuela
Lebanon	The West Indies
Malaya	Yugoslavia
Netherlands	
[Mr. Benidickson.l


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	On what date did the Department of Public Works approve construction of a new federal building at North Sydney, Nova Scotia?
2.	On what date were plans commenced for this building?
3.	On what date were plans and specifications for this building completed?
4.	On what date were funds included in the estimates for this building?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the answers to these questions are as follows:
1.	October 1, 1957.
2.	January 6, 1958.
3.	June 26, 1958.
4.	April 1, 1958.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did Marine Industries Limited receive any contracts from the Department of Public Works, the Department of Transport and the St. Lawrence seaway authority between 1951 and 1957, inclusive?
2.	If so, what was the total value of such contracts, when were they let, and for what particular purposes?


PRINTING BUREAU CONTRACTS, QUEBEC
Mr. Caron: 1.	Were any contracts over $5,000 for printing awarded by the printing bureau in the province of Quebec from January 1, 1958 to June 1, 1958?
2.	If so, how many, to what firms and in what amounts?
3.	Were any such contracts under $5,000 awarded in the province of Quebec during the above period?
4.	If so, how many, to what firms and in what amounts?
5.	Were any contracts over $5,000 for printing awarded by the printing bureau in the province of Quebec from June 1, 1958 to date?
6.	If so, how many, to what firms and in what amounts?
7.	Were any such contracts under $5,000 awarded in the province of Quebec during the period June 1. 1958 to date?
8.	If so, how many, to what firms and in what amounts?


ATLAS OF CANADA
Mr. Caron: 1.	By whom is the Atlas of Canada published and who prepares the information contained therein?
2.	Who offers it for sale to the public, when was it first offered for sale, were notices sent out to this effect, and on what date?
3.	Was a further notice sent out announcing a delay in the date of readiness of the atlas? If so, what was the reason for the delay?
4.	Were binders required for the atlas?
5.	Were tenders advertised or sought for the supply of such binders? If so, on what date, and in what amounts?

6.	What were the names of the firm or firms tendering and the amount of each tender?
7.	To whom was the contract awarded?
8.	Was a second call for tenders sent out? If so, for how many binders?
9.	What was the name of the firm or firms tendering and what was the amount of each tender?
10.	To what firm was the contract awarded and at what price?
11.	Were further binders required? If so, were tenders received and at what price?
12.	Were representations made on behalf of the last mentioned firm? If so, by whom?
13.	How long will it be before such binders are ready?
14.	From the time the first order was given out until the last one is fulfilled, what is the reason for delay?


INTERSERVICE EQUIVALENTS BOARD
Mr. Herridge: 1.	(a) Who are the executive staff of the interservice equivalents board? (b) What are their positions and what is the salary of each?
2.	What are the academic and technical qualifications of each member of the executive staff of the interservice equivalents board?
3.	What are the terms of reference of the executive secretary of the interservice equivalents board, and by whom were they prepared?
4.	(a) Is the position of executive secretary of the interservice equivalents board a civil service appointment? (b) when was the present secretary of the board appointed to this position? (c) was the competition for this appointment filled originally by an "open" competition?



PARKING PROPERTY


Mr. McGregor: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railways or any of its subsidiaries, or any government department, leased or rented any property in Canada or the United States to any company, corporation, association, person or persons for automobile parking purposes since January 1, 1946?
2.	If so, (a) what is the location and size of each property? (b) who are the officers of the companies, corporations and/or associations concerned, and what position is held by each? (c) what is the date of each lease and/or agreement, period covered by each and terms of same? (d) what is the amount of rent or percentage of revenue charged in each case, and on what basis were such figures agreed upon?
3.	In each case of property being rented or leased for parking purposes, were tenders called?
4.	If so, (a) on what dates; (b) in which papers were they advertised? (c) what tenders or bids were received; from whom, and what were the respective figures?
5.	What is the name of the official signing such leases or agreements on behalf of (a) the lessor; (b) the lessee?



INTERSERVICE EQUIVALENTS BOARD

Mr. Herridge: 1.	When the interservice equivalents board was first formed were terms of reference drafted? If so, by whom, and are certified copies available for inspection?
2.	Were terms of reference re-written at a later date? If so, by whom, at what date, by whom were they approved, and are certified copies available for inspection?
66968-9-322J
Motions for Papers
3.	How does the position of executive secretary of the interservice equivalents board compare, from a responsibility point of view, with the chief architect for the construction division of the army (D.N.D.), or R.C.A.F. (D.N.D.) ?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 126-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of the statement of evidence by Mr. T. D. MacDonald, director of investigation and research of the combines investigation branch in the matter of an inquiry into the production, purchase and sale of raw fish in British Columbia.
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the whole tenor and provisions of the Combines Investigation Act make it clear that it was the intention of parliament that proceedings and inquiries under the act should be conducted in private unless otherwise specifically ordered, until such time as a fully balanced report is available on the basis of a hearing of all parties by the commission, at which time the parties can advance their arguments and answers to the director's statement. In view of this intention of parliament I am unable to accept the motion for the production of one of the statements at this stage.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that part of the statement of evidence has already been reproduced in a particular publication, and in fairness to the parties concerned I want all of them made public.


Mr. Speaker:: This is not a debatable motion. However, if the minister wishes to reply he may.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is true that one of the parties published a portion of a statement. If they wish to publish the whole of it, it is within their power to do so. There are three parties concerned, and there are three other statements of evidence. It would be, I consider, contrary to the intention of parliament to produce one of the statements or all of the statements at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to withdraw the motion?


Frank Howard: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I have put the motion. Those in favour of the motion No. 126 please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion negatived on division.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister tell the house what steps the government are taking to remove the present threat to the effective existence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman and the representatives of his party have taken a strong stand, as have the members of this party, against any government interference with the C.B.C. I think that constitutes a complete answer to the hon. gentleman's question.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
the Prime Minister a question. Has the Prime Minister read the protests from the federation of agriculture and certain religious groups concerning interference in the full and open editorial comment of the C.B.C., and what does he intend to do about it?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the same answer applies in this case that applied to the question of the Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a question I had hoped to address to the Minister of National Revenue, but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister. Were discussions held in the past ten days in Toronto or Ottawa between management of the C.B.C. and persons who have since resigned from their posts in the corporation? If so, who was present at these discussions for C.B.C. management and for the talks and public affairs personnel? How many such meetings were held, and on what dates?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Acting Minister of National Revenue):: I will take that question as notice.


Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister comment on a statement made by a group of top C.B.C. officials who have resigned stating, that by removing "Preview Commentary" from the air under political pressure the management of the
IMr. Speaker.]
C.B.C. with the concurrence of the board of directors has bartered away the integrity of national broadcasting in Canada?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will take that question as notice, also.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: In view of the importance of this matter can the Prime Minister tell us whether or not Mr. Allister Grossart of the Progressive Conservative party organization registered complaints with the C.B.C. regarding political commentaries of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


John George Diefenbaker: In so far as the C.B.C. is concerned, it has its board of directors who govern it and determine its course. Any question of this kind should be directed to the proper source of information.
(Later:)


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue or his representative. In view of the minister's statement yesterday to the effect that 12 resignations in the C.B.C. were a highly exaggerated number, as mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, will the minister comment on the fact that there are now 32 such resignations, as announced in the morning press and over the radio.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the Minister without Portfolio who is acting for the Minister of National Revenue-and I take it this is a question he would want to consider tomorrow-whether he can tell us if the decision to cancel "Preview Commentary" was taken by the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation without prior consultation with the talks and public affairs department. If so, was this procedure not abnormal, in view of the regular procedure followed in such matters? Is the minister now in a position to say whether or not it is true that a further group of 10 officials propose to resign before the end of this day?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):
On the orders of the day:


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Solicitor General, or whomever is acting for him, a question. Has the minister made, either directly or indi-

rectly, any representations to the C.B.C. with regard to French language radio and television programs?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice and reply to it tomorrow.
(Text):



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries; I have sent him notice. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to an article in the summer 1959 edition of the University of British Columbia's Alumni Chronicle by a Mr. Val Gwyther which erroneously and misleadingly states that it is possible to develop the Fraser river for hydroelectric purposes while at the same time saving the fish runs on that river? If so, will the minister undertake to approach the publishers of this periodical in an effort to have a more accurate account published in their next issue?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I might say that I feel the question falls outside my field of responsibility.
However, I would like to say that I have seen the article referred to, and I find it is very similar to an article which appeared in another periodical by the same author some time ago. This other periodical, which is the official publication of a professional organization in British Columbia, subsequently in the interest of expressing both sides of the question published a second article with a divergent point of view. I would presume that in the interest of objectivity the U.B.C. Alumni Chronicle will follow a similar course. They are, of course, as far as I am concerned, perfectly free to publish whatever they see fit.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question. Do I understand the minister to indicate that it is outside his jurisdiction and responsibility to attempt to get the true picture, as far as fish are concerned, across to the public?


Mr. Speaker:: 1 think the hon. member is seeking to engage the minister in argument. The minister did state that he regarded this as not being a matter of his administrative
Inquiries of the Ministry responsibility, and I view the question in the same light although I allowed it to be answered.
(Translation):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin) inquired about the theft of $3,000 and 2,000 toll tokens at the Jacques Cartier bridge. I am glad to be able to supply the following particulars.
I am informed by the national harbours board that, at the time of the theft-established by the police as being between 11.55 p.m. Saturday, and 12.25 a.m. Sunday-there were, as usual, two collectors on duty. The theft took place in the toll office, which is about 20 feet from the collection boxes, and the thieves gained entrance by breaking into the coal chute.
The superintendent on duty at the toll office had, as usual, locked the door of the office at about 11.50 p.m., and was making his round toward the south side of the bridge for the purpose of checking the tolls of the collectors who were to be relieved from duty at midnight. The money and tokens represented collections since 4 p.m. Saturday. The matter is being investigated.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a further question of the minister. In view of the statement he has just made, do the officials of his department intend to take steps in order to avoid the recurrence of similar thefts in the future?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):



POLYMER CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lamblon West):: In view of suggestions that there has been some hitch in the settlement of the dispute involving the Polymer Corporation, I wonder if the Minister of Labour has any report he could make to the house.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: The report I have this morning is to the effect that terms of settlement have been arrived at. These have now been ratified and an agreement has been signed.

Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING



C.M.H.C.-INQUIRY AS TO DIRECT LOANS TO BUILDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Does the government, through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, intend to make direct loans to builders as it did last year? If so, when can the house building industry expect the government to announce its intentions in this regard?


Howard Charles Green: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. This is a subject on which government policy will have to be announced in due course. I may add that I did have a very helpful discussion with the executive officers of the national home builders' association earlier in the week on this particular subject.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to reply to a question which the hon. member for Nipissing asked yesterday and which I took as notice as Acting Minister of Defence Production. The answer is that public tenders are not called for construction of defence installations where the work is of a classified nature.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if I could direct a supplementary question to the minister or to the Minister of Defence Production. In view of the report that certain contracting firms, including one United States firm, are today viewing the site at the invitation of this government, will the minister responsible reconsider this matter and give capable northern Ontario companies an opportunity to tender?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, this question has been considered at length by the president of defence construction. No United States company is going to tender on this contract. Any company which is competent to do this classified and very strict work-it is something very special- has been asked and will be asked to tender.


John Richard Garland: Will northern Ontario firms be given an opportunity to tender on this work?


Mr. O'Hurley:: Some northern Ontario
firms which can do the work have been asked.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Defence Production. It is in connection with the work being done on the Bomarc missile base at North Bay. Will the minister give us some assurance that local labour will be given the first opportunity for employment on this project?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Mr. Speaker, in this contract, as in all others under defence production, local labour has first preference.



MEETINGS WITH UNITED STATES AIRPLANE MANUFACTURERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister had any meetings in Ottawa in the last ten days with United States airplane manufacturers on the subject of an aircraft for the Royal Canadian Air Force?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: A number of manufacturers have been to see me regarding the construction of aircraft, yes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Can the minister state briefly what manufacturers?


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Randolph Pearkes: I simply say that a number of representatives of manufacturing firms have been to see me.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to a request from Mr. A. P. Gleave, president of the Saskatchewan farmers' union, that legislation to provide a system of long term credit for farmers should be referred to the agriculture committee for study so that, in Mr. Gleave's words, the house will not rush through legislation which might in the long run prove unsatisfactory?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minisier of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I had a request from Mr. Gleave that this legislation should be sent to the agriculture committee for study, and I replied that in view of the fact the session was rapidly drawing to a close, I did not

know whether there would be time to do that but that no firm decision had been taken on the matter.


Hazen Robert Argue: Has the minister given any further consideration to this question? Does he not agree with Mr. Gleave that, since it is long term legislation, it is absolutely essential that farm organizations should be given the right to express their views?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, practically all farm organizations in this country have already expressed their views with respect to farm credit legislation. We have had views from the interprovincial farm union, the federation of agriculture and various other agricultural organizations.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the proposed legislation conform to the views of the farm organizations?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will find that out when the resolution is adopted and the bill is given first reading.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, my view is that it does not.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY USE OF CANADIAN PILOTS BY U.S. NAVY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received a request, or does he know if a request has gone forward to the St. Lawrence-Kingston-Ottawa pilots' association, from the United States navy for the use of Canadian pilots to take the United States navy's warships through the St. Lawrence seaway?


George Harris Hees: No, I am not aware of such a request. I would not think it improbable that such a request would be received.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gaie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if the hon. lady will give sympathetic consideration to the request of the two Latvian fishermen who are now in Newfoundland and who have asked to be allowed to take refuge in Canada?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this whole matter is under consideration at
Inquiries of the Ministry the moment. I am not sure that the hon. member is right when he says they have asked for refuge in the strict meaning of that expression, but I can assure the house that the whole matter is receiving sympathetic attention.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the government still follow the policy of the previous administration of deporting no one behind the iron curtain?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty broad question which has many ramifications, and I do not think I should answer it in a few words.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is he aware that investors in the medium and higher income groups realize a greater net return on recent Canadian bond issues than they do from the securities of most townships and hamlets of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I could not hear all the hon. gentleman's question. If he will repeat it, I will endeavour to answer it.


William Hector McMillan: I want to know if the minister is aware that investors in the medium and higher income groups realize a greater net return on recent Canadian bond issues than they do from the securities of most townships and hamlets of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not a fact. The hon. member is comparing different things entirely. You see, Mr. Speaker, before there can be any fair basis of comparison you have to have like things, and like things in the market mean securities comparable in maturity, comparable in rate and comparable in the amount of the issue.


William Hector McMillan: Does the minister deny the reports of Canadian banks and trust companies with respect to this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that the hon. member is following a proper course in introducing questions of that kind. They are not matters that can be answered simply, and the minister is being asked to give opinions on matters that are well known or can be easily ascertained from public information. The hon. member really is not asking for information.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, may I suggest that it goes beyond that. The hon. member is making assertions in regard to what these opinions are, and I do not agree that he is correctly stating the weight of opinion in that respect.


Lionel Chevrier: Surely he has a right to ask a question. Are you going to determine the conduct of the house?



WASHINGTON MEETING ON EXPORT OF SURPLUS FARM PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether there was a meeting in Washington last week of representatives of governments to discuss the export of surplus agricultural products? If so, can the minister report on the results of that meeting?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: A meeting did take place in Washington attended by officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce and others. I would be very pleased to give a report later with regard to the outcome of that meeting.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: May I
ask the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to answer the question I directed yesterday to the Acting Minister of Labour with reference to a telegram from the united mine workers of New Waterford, Nova Scotia, requesting that the town of New Waterford be declared a depressed area?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have asked my officials to obtain full information on the situation from officers of the Dominion Steel and Coal Company, and I am now informed by officials of the company that full production will begin on June 29 in all the mines of the area and is expected to continue to the end of the year at least.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: May I direct a question to the Postmaster General. He is reported in a newspaper as having said at
[Mr. Speaker.!
the toastmasters' club last night that one of the needs in today's world is people with something worth while to say and the ability to say it convincingly. Is the Postmaster General in a position to tell the house if he has found that out in his own government? (Translation):


Hon. W. M. Hamilion (Postmaster General):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have reached that conclusion on listening to remarks by my hon. friend from St. Denis (Mr. Denis).
(Text):



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether, on this 462nd anniversary of the discovery of Canada by John Cabot, he is in a position to announce the establishment of a national historic park at cape Bonavista?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will be glad to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I am certainly not in a position to make any announcement.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare on the 56th anniversary of his birth if he is now in a position to make a statement of government policy on the matter of evacuation and shelter with respect to civil defence.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: On my anniversary, one day removed from that of the hon. member for Essex East, I should like to say that this matter is receiving every consideration.



REPORTED REDUCTION IN PRODUCTION AND INCREASE IN IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: May I
ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he is now in a position to answer the question I asked yesterday regarding the decrease in the output of Canadian coal and the increase in imports.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has drawn attention to the expression of opinion that he smuggled into his question yesterday which should more properly-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Not smuggled; it was a
straightforward question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If the hon. member wants
an answer to his question he had better keep quiet and not interrupt. He smuggled this expression of opinion into a question which should more properly have been addressed to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: He was away.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have checked the release
issued by the dominion bureau of statistics, and I might say that the hon. member might well have given me notice of this question. I find that as far as the Department of Trade and Commerce is concerned we have taken note of the imports of coal. Questions with regard to the production of coal are more properly addressed to the other department.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No answer.



FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT


Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of Bill C-63, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

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



* DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
161. Construction, improvements and equipment. $6,058,571.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not being here earlier during the consideration of this item of the minister's estimates. I realize that the amount is substantial. It has to do with the expenditure of a little over $6 million. The minister may have given the details, but I wonder if he would draw to the attention of the committee what are the main items in this estimate?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was done, I think, on the last occasion, but perhaps I could summarize briefly what I did point out to the committee then. The main construction under way at the present time is the completion of a new 66968-9-323
Supply-Justice
institution at Joyceville, which we expect to be ready for occupancy this fall; there is also the construction of a new institution at St. Vincent de Paul, which we hope to have ready for occupancy in the year 1960. In addition to those, we are constructing, remodelling or altering to make more suitable for our purposes the satellite institutions at Valleyfield and William Head, British Columbia; also a number of additions and enlargements to other institutions, such as a new dormitory building at Saskatchewan and a new dormitory building at the existing institution of St. Vincent de Paul.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister for giving this information. May I just ask one or two questions in connection with the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary. Is this an extension of the present institution or is it a new building?


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is a new institution but on the same reserve. It is not going to be part of the same old building but it is a new institution, very much along the lines of the Joyceville institution, and it is limited to the St. Vincent de Paul reserve.


Lionel Chevrier: What exactly will the department be doing at Valleyfield? Will it be an institution like St. Vincent de Paul? Will it be operated under the direction of the penitentiary at St. Vincent de Paul?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Valleyfield site is on loan from the Department of National Defence. It is a satellite institution of St. Vincent de Paul at present, and has been opened for the purpose of relieving the very serious overcrowding at St. Vincent de Paul. When we get the new institution on the St. Vincent de Paul reserve completed I hope that will take care of the overcrowding at that place for some time, but in the meantime there is a serious accommodation problem.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the institution at Valleyfield on de Salaberry island, or part of the plant which was originally called the nitro plant?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am informed the site is on the mainland.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the escape of three or four prisoners from William Head, a satellite institution where security arrangements are not the same as in the primary institutions, I should like to ask whether or not this situation over the week end has caused the minister to reconsider security arrangements at William Head and these satellite institutions generally.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that problem is going to be looked at as soon as the

Supply-Justice
reports are complete. We have not yet complete reports of the circumstances of the escape. Tentatively, at the moment we do not believe the whole idea is in any sense prejudiced because of these escapes, but we certainly recognize that we have to have under constant revision these current provisions which we put into effect in this new and rather experimental type of project.


Lionel Chevrier: May I, just for clarification, ask another question. The minister said that the satellite institution at Valleyfield was on the mainland. My understanding is that with the construction of the canal, Valleyfield itself is an island. What I am trying to inquire is, where is the satellite going to be constructed on the premises of national defence? The premises of national defence with which I am familiar in that area are the nitro plant.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What has been made available to us is part of the Valleyfield camp, on the outskirts of the city of Valleyfield.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister say whether it is part of the old nitro plant that was used during the war?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I do not believe it is any part of the nitro plant. My recollection of the pictures and maps I saw showed it was part of the hutted camp which was built and occupied by the Department of National Defence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I asked the minister a number of questions and the minister gave a list in reply which appears on page 4980 of Hansard, showing the construction projects of some magnitude that had been instituted since he became minister. I asked him to give certain details about each of those. I could perhaps recall them to the minister's mind.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have the answers here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The first one was the department's estimate. The second was the actual amount of the contract or contracts that had been let. The third was whether there was more than one contract. The fourth one was if there was more than one contract, why?


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I explained in the earlier discussion on June 19, some of these projects are being carried out with inmate labour; therefore there is no question of a contract for them. I have now a complete answer as requested by the hon. member with respect to some of them, particularly the new institution in Quebec. It is a repetition of information I gave the last day this matter

was tinder discussion, but in order that the answer may be complete I should perhaps repeat it.
With regard to Quebec, for the administration building the estimated cost was $250,000. The contract was let for $213,000, on October 22, 1958. The contractor was A. N, Bail Co. Ltd. of Montreal, Quebec. Automotive building; estimate $140,000; contract let for $158,844 on December 1, 1958 to L. Gordon Tarlton Ltd., Montreal, Quebec. Hospital and chapels building and accommodation building; estimate, $1,950,000; contract let for $1,574,000 on December 2, 1958, to A. N. Bail Ltd., Montreal, P.Q. Stores building and maintenance shop building; estimate $230,000; contract for $266,770 let on December 2, 1958 to A. N. Bail Co. Ltd., Montreal, Quebec. Steam generator plant, which as I explained was in the estimate included with two other buildings at a total cost of $600,000, has been let now; this one building, on a contract for $268,194 on December 2, 1958 to Blainville Welding & Supplies Inc., St. Therese, Quebec. Power plant building, which was another part of that building included in the total estimate of $600,000; the contract therefor has now been let at $225,420 on December 5, 1958 to Doug. Bremner Construction Ltd., Montreal, P.Q. Two shop buildings-it is really a laundry building and shop building-estimate $230,000; contract for $242,300 let on December 9, 1958 to Bee Construction Ltd., of Montreal, P.Q. Water service supply line; a contract for one part of that line has been let. All lines were estimated at $300,000. This particular contract is for $34,900, let on January 12, 1959 to McNamara (Que.) Ltd., Montreal, Quebec. Kitchen building and psychiatric building-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that one building?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are two buildings. The kitchen building was estimated at $225,000 and the psychiatric building at $200,000 for a total of $425,000. These two contracts have been let as one contract for a total of $419,985 on February 16, 1959 to Tetrault & Freres Ltee, of Verdun, P.Q. Radial brick chimney, which was also included in the total $600,000 estimate referred to above; contract has now been let for $15,399 on May 11, 1959 to Custodis Canadian Chimney Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ontario. Total contracts therefore for the new institution at Quebec-


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is St. Vincent de Paul, is it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. Contracts for the new institution at Quebec have been let to a total of $3,378,812.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As compared with the estimate of what?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not all contracts have been let. Total estimated cost for this institution was $4,790,000. There remain to be let contracts for some of the services. The exercise hall, school and laboratory building was estimated at $400,000. As I said, many of the service lines and the hardware and lighting fixtures and miscellaneous items were to be installed after the building was completed. They are estimated at $150,000. It would therefore appear the contracts which are estimated to cost some $550,000 plus the balance of the service lines, which was $300,000-that would be a total of $850,000- remain to be let. We therefore appear to be well within the total estimates on the basis of contracts let so far.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is there any contract for air conditioning.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the vote
carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That deals only with one institution.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friend will permit me to do so, I will continue with the list. The next set of information I have is major buildings under construction during 19581959 in existing permanent institutions. At Dorchester penitentiary piggery building F-55 was authorized on September 30, 1958 for a total of $50,000 for material purchases. Labour is being done by inmates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then evidently the minister made an error the other evening, because he gave the figure at $20,000. Was that an estimate?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The first figure I gave was the amount printed in this year's estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then it is going to take more than one year to build this piggery, is it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. It is a big undertaking. Dorchester has a large farm, and one of the main activities on that farm is the breeding of pigs. As I pointed out, the labour is to be done by the inmates, which in itself provides an occupation for them. It is expected that the construction will not be completed this year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say what the estimated total cost of the piggery is?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is $50,000 for materials.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister said $50,000?
66968-9-323J
Supply-J ustice


Edmund Davie Fulton: For materials, yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are the inmates paid anything for their labour?


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I explained the last time, the matter has been under discussion. They are paid a daily rate which varies according to grade on a per diem basis. As I explained, no attempt is made to equate it to the ordinary wage scale outside.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no collective bargaining, then?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think my hon. friend knows the answer to that question, but if he wishes me to put it on the record I will. The answer is no. Then, still at Dorchester, there is an exercise hall school and library building B-8, authorized May 29, 1957.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was not authorized by the minister?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, but the construction has commenced since this government took office, and that is the question I was asked. That was authorized to a total of $105,000 for material purchases; labour is being performed by the inmates. The contract for supply and erection of structural steel was covered by an acceptance of a tender of Steel Structure and Services Limited of Montreal in the amount of $14,314. Then at St. Vincent de Paul, in addition to the new institution which is being built on the reserve we are adding a new dormitory to the present institution and making an extension to the industrial building. With respect to the industrial building, the extension was authorized on May 9, 1958 to a total of $74,800 for material purchases, labour being performed by the inmates. The dormitory building was authorized on November 22, 1958 to accommodate 104 inmates. A total of $55,225 was authorized for the purchase and erection of the steel framework, the foundations and interior finishing are being done by the inmates. The contract for the steel building was let to Crosby Engineering Limited of Montreal in the amount of $32,675.
At Kingston a new kitchen building, C-25, was authorized on April 29, 1957 to a total of $100,000. The contract for the supply and erection of structural steel was let to Leeds Bridge and Iron Works, Gananoque, Ontario; in the amount of $25,598. The balance of the authorization will be for the purchase of materials to be installed by the inmates.
At Collin's Bay a new dairy barn building was authorized on May 13, 1957 to a total of $96,653, which is to cover the purchase of materials, labour being performed by the inmates. I should point out that the amount

Sup p ly-J ustice
paid the inmates is a daily amount irrespective of the particular work they are doing, and it comes out of the operations and maintenance vote, so that none of this comparatively small amount for day pay is included in the figures I have given here.
Another building at Collin's Bay is a new vocational shop building authorized May 14, 1958 to a total of $12,200, which is again to cover material purchases, the labour being performed by the inmates.
At the Manitoba penitentiary a new shop building was authorized February 25, 1958 in the amount of $67,000 to cover material purchases, labour being performed by the inmates. A new exercise yard was authorized July 30, 1958 in the amount of $25,000 to cover material purchases, labour performed by the inmates. New dormitory accommodation was constructed in an existing building, authorized on September 25, 1958 to a total of $14,111 to cover material purchases, labour being performed by the inmates.
At Saskatchewan penitentiary, Prince Albert, a new automotive training repair and storage building was authorized on September 30, 1958 in an amount estimated of $90,000, to cover material purchases, labour being performed by the inmates. Reconstruction and reroofing of the west wing shops building was authorized on April 21, 1958 at an estimated cost of $18,500 to cover material purchases. A new industrial warehouse building was authorized July 21, 1958 to a total of $24,200 to cover material purchases. A new dormitory building was authorized November 28, 1958 to a total of $23,500 to cover material purchases. At British Columbia penitentiary a new warehouse building was authorized November 22, 1957 to a total of $30,000, estimated to cover material purchases.
Then a general note. Since the expenditures for construction being carried out by inmates reflects material costs only with no provision for labour, overhead, equipment, shop prefabrication, etc., a comparative estimate of the actual value of the construction projects would be approximately 100 per cent higher.
The total of the major projects I have referred to above is $786,189, which if you add the 100 per cent comes to a total approximate actual value of $1,572,378.
Now the satellite institutions. At William Head, British Columbia, minor reconstruction and renovation work is being carried out by inmates. Expenditure for this purpose to March 31, 1959 is $6,600, approximately. At Valleyfield, Quebec, minor reconstruction and renovation work is being carried out by inmates. Expenditure for this purpose to March 31,	1959 has been approximately

IMr. Fulton.]


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the minister for the information he has given us. There are two questions I would like to ask, and I will ask them both at the same time so the minister can answer them both at the same time. My first question is this. In the case of contracts let as opposed to work being done by the inmates, were tenders called in every case? I will preface my second question by a very brief statement. The minister will recall that when he sat over here his colleague, then and still the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who was appointed Minister of Public Works, used to argue very eloquently and I thought rather persuasively that public works of the government should be done by the Department of Public Works. Two years have elapsed since the hon. gentleman became Minister of Public Works, and so far as I know there has been no increase in the functions of the Department of Public Works.
I would ask the minister if he has had any discussions with the Minister of Public Works or any of his officials in this regard. Obviously the projects carried on by prison inmates would, I can well understand, have to remain in the penitentiaries branch, but does not the minister think it is advisable in the case of these large contracts, where the work is going to be done entirely by contractors, to have competent and experienced staff of the Department of Public Works dealing with these matters?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, to answer the first question, the answer is yes; competitive tenders were called in every case. In one case it is interesting to note that, for the purpose of comparison, we asked for tenders on a combined power plant building and steam generating plant at St. Vincent de Paul and also for tenders separately on each of the buildings, and we found that accepting the separate contracts realized a saving of $24,872.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister communicate that information to the Minister of Public Works and he can let his officials know about that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect to the other question, it is a fact that in the penitentiaries branch, we have our own engineering and architectural staff and they supervise the building and the letting of contracts by the penitentiaries branch. I think the very reason my hon. friend has mentioned with respect to those projects done by inmate labour gives the answer why it is desirable to continue in the penitentiaries branch our own engineering and architectural services. We have special problems which arise because these are penitentiaries, and extra

building has to be done within the institutions, in addition to which we have very special problems in connection with the maintenance and repair of our institutions which necessitate keeping our own engineering and architectural branch.
For that reason it was not considered feasible or desirable or economic to have this building done by public works, but I may tell the hon. gentleman now as a matter of general information that when I was Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and I realized that there was a very substantial building program being undertaken in connection with Indian schools, it was my feeling that it would be a mistake for us to duplicate or attempt to duplicate the organization of the Department of Public Works. I discussed this with the officials and they were of the same view, and we instituted discussions with the Department of Public Works with a view to that department undertaking a closer management of our building operations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Justice is completely mistaken. If he will look at the files of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration he will find that shortly after I became minister, Mr. Winters and I instituted a study as a result of which these buildings were transferred to the full limit that the Department of Public Works was willing to undertake in each successive year. The suggestion was made by Mr. Winters, but I was in full accord with his view that as rapidly as possible we should dismantle the whole construction branch of Indian affairs except for those minor repairs and minor projects which obviously it would be a waste of time for the staff of the Department of Public Works to deal with because they could so often be done by Indian superintendents. So the accolade which the hon. gentleman gave himself is totally undeserved. If he made any change at all he was simply carrying on the policy which was going on just as fast as public works could digest it, two years before.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then not much progress had been made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answer the minister gave is certainly not satisfactory. When hon. gentlemen opposite were on this side of the house they complained about the division of responsibility and the confusion of responsibility for the construction of public buildings entrusted to so many departments of government. I well remember this question being raised on my own estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, though I cannot recall whether or not the Minister of Justice participated in that debate. Fortunately I was in the position of being able to say that with regard to construction
Supply-Justice
in that department, the departmental program was being carried out by the Department of Public Works.
That was the occasion of a strong and spirited debate entered into by some hon. members who urged the centralization under one department, the Department of Public Works, of responsibility for the whole of the government's building program. But the minister in answer to the indictment levelled at him this morning by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate did not provide an adequate explanation. What justification can there be for the Department of Justice carrying on a complete duplication of the activities of the Department of Public Works with regard to its properties?
I can well understand that in view of the desirability of having prisoners carry on certain work as part of their training, as well as serving other purposes connected with the status of prisoners, some occupation, possibly connected with building, might be found for them; but surely prisoners are not called upon to build penitentiaries. I can understand prisoners lodged, say at Kingston, constructing benches and cupboards or pigsties, but to assign to the prison population projects such as constructing big additions to such institutions as St. Vincent de Paul is, of course, perfectly ridiculous. The minister has not answered the charge made by his own colleagues on another occasion and in another capacity and from another place in this house, and if those arguments were valid two years ago they are no less valid, surely, in the judgment of hon. gentlemen opposite today.
The Department of Public Works should increasingly be entrusted with the responsibility of looking after the construction requirements of all departments of the government just as, for instance, the Department of National Health and Welfare is now being increasingly assigned health responsibilities of all departments. The minister ought surely to give us a more satisfactory reason for the policy of decentralization practised by the Department of Justice as well as by other departments of the government. The minister is, I think, a member of treasury board-


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are quite wrong, as usual.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman says I am quite wrong. I had hoped he would have had the opportunity of acquiring that additional experience in the conduct of the government of Canada. I hope before he ceases to be a minister he will be appointed to treasury board because he would find it a useful experience, an experience which if he had profited by it would not have allowed him to make the rather weak defence he did make a few moments ago in answer

Supply-J ustice
to the penetrating observations of my colleague the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
The minister should, I submit, give us an explanation, in addition to the reasons he has already given, as to why the Department of Justice should continue to duplicate, with all the additional expense involved, the work of another department in the construction of these major institutions and similar projects. The answer given a few moments ago by the Minister of Justice, considered in the light of the indictments which were made against the former administration by his colleagues, is one which requires further explanation, and I hope it will be an adequate explanation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will be glad to give an extended reply. I did not think it would be necessary for me to give a very extended answer in justification of this program which, incidentally, has been in effect for 75 years. I did not think it would be necessary for me to give an extended reply to an hon. gentleman who was a member of the government which itself carried on the same program for 22 years; but if the hon. member for Essex East sat all the years he did in the former administration without realizing what are the advantages of carrying on in this manner, and the justification for doing so, I will be glad to rehearse them to him.
I have already indicated some of the reasons, but I did it shortly. Now I will expand on what I said before. It is recognized, and should be recognized by anyone who approaches this question from a common sense point of view, that the problem of maintaining and repairing the very considerable investment in buildings which the taxpayers of Canada have with respect to penitentiaries poses special difficulties, because here we are dealing with a branch which is responsible for the custody and maintenance and discipline and training of inmates of penitentiaries. This is not the kind of problem with which the Department of Public Works deals. It is therefore considered-and, I think, on the soundest basis of common sense-that it is necessary for us to maintain in the penitentiaries branch a constructional, architectural and engineering service if for no other reason than for the purpose of supervising the maintenance and repair work which is carried out in the great majority of cases by inmate labour, and which does not lend itself to the type of construction under contract which is widely used by the Department of Public Works.
Since, therefore, it is necessary for this branch to maintain an architectural and engineering service, with the considerable staff necessary to supervise this work in the ten institutions in Canada from coast to coast


ten major institutions-it is a matter of common sense and economy that they should at the same time take responsibility for new construction.
The hon. member for Essex East is very short in his recollection and quite inaccurate in his summary of the nature of the construction that is undertaken. It is the normal case that the maximum of construction is done by inmate labour. This, of course, poses a special problem. It is the type of construction and type of problem that the Department of Public Works is not accustomed to handling.
It is true that in the new institutions at St. Vincent de Paul and Joyceville the majority of the work is being done by outside contractors. The reason for that is that there was a very great element of urgency in getting those buildings completed, and we would not pretend that doing it by inmate labour, or doing the majority of the work by inmate labour, is as fast as calling in an outside contractor; but much more work would have been done by inmate labour even in the construction of those new institutions were it not for the urgency of providing the new accommodation.
Nevertheless there is a substantial element of prison population being employed, and my hon. friend is quite wrong when he says there is no inmate labour employed on the new construction. There is. We have had inmates working in Joyceville almost from the time the walls were completed because a great deal of the interior finishing and installation is being done by the inmates and we have had a substantial inmate population there almost from the time that construction was commenced. The same thing, of course-


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a question on the point?


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I just finish, and I shall be glad to answer the question after. Incidentally, I am told that with respect to the construction of the very large penitentiaries, for instance Prince Albert, the major part, if not the whole of it, was done by penitentiary labour, so that the type of construction and the problems that have to be met in cases of penitentiary construction, whether of new buildings or of repairs and renovations to existing institutions, are of a nature that require immediate supervision and immediate control within the penitentiary branch itself. The only way to accomplish that is to maintain our own engineering and architectural service, which has been the pattern followed for 75 years.
There is, I think, absolutely nothing inconsistent in the pattern still being followed

and what was said by certain members who now form the government when they were sitting opposite. The point that was made then, as I recall it, was that there was room for better co-ordination and centralization of the building activities with the purview of the Department of Public Works. But I do not recall that it was ever said that there should never be any other separate organization. If my hon. friend were able to find words that went that far I should be surprised. Therefore the fact that we continue to maintain in one case, on the basis of common sense and economy, a separate engineering and architectural branch does not, as I see it, destroy any general case that was made out on a former occasion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister intend it to be taken from his statement that contractors are themselves using prison labour on contracts, because that was the inference one would draw? That is the reason I rose to ask the question at that point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate it. If I did create that impression I appreciate the opportunity to correct it. No; what I meant was that where a contractor has a contract for a building, as soon as he reaches a certain stage, the walls are up and the roof is on, we then move inmates in to do other work within the building which is not part of the contract.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can understand that, but it does seem to me that it completely invalidates the minister's argument in so far as large structures being built by contract are concerned. The problem is precisely the same as it is in Indian affairs. You have a problem of small buildings, new buildings that are built largely by the Indians under the Indian superintendent, and you have the problems of maintenance, and so on, which it would be ridiculous to ask the Department of Public Works to do.
Then you have mainly schools. It is true that you have a program for building residential schools that was carried on for a good many years by the Indian affairs branch which, I agreed with Mr. Winters, was a mistake, and as fast as public works could build them-this was at a time of full employment and that, of course, lessened the possibility of doing it as quickly as it could be done now-these big projects were taken over.
When he was on this side of the house I think the Minister of Public Works said that everything should be done by public works. I think, given time, we can easily substantiate that; but we would not maintain anything so foolish. We would say that the minister has a complete argument as far as these small structures, such as piggeries and
Supply-J ustice
things of that sort, are concerned, but when you come to letting a huge contract for $1 million or $2 million it does seem ridiculous that the government should have two sets of architects and engineers in two different departments. Actually, we now have more than that.


Frank Howard: I should like to make one or two comments. With respect to the problem that has been raised in so far as the maintenance of a staff of architects and designers is concerned, I have no particular thoughts on the matter. Although it would seem that while the building of penitentiaries necessitates a certain type of architecture, a certain type of structure which is different from a public building or a wharf, or things of that nature, yet it would appear that there is a duplication and an unnecessary cost because of that duplication by reason of having this organization within the Department of Justice for the building of penitentiaries and other structures connected with them. If a saving could be made it should be transferred to the Department of Public Works. Whether this is so I cannot say.
I would like to make a few comments on the question of inmates working on the building of penal institutions and on their maintenance and repair. I hope I got the wrong impression from the comments of the hon. member for Essex East when he made reference to inmates building benches and building piggeries and things of that nature, and that inmate labour should be confined to this sort of thing. If I am incorrect I will stand corrected, but I do not think it should be left at that and that inmates in penitentiaries should be confined to doing the menial tasks or the minor little jobs of work that might be necessary in maintaining the penitentiaries themselves, or doing such things as sewing together mail bags for the Post Office Department or lesser jobs of that nature.
I think more and more effort should be concentrated on ensuring that inmates have every possible opportunity in the construction of major buildings, minor buildings, new construction and everything else in the penal institution; that inmate labour should be given every opportunity to participate in the construction of those buildings if for no other reason than that it would give the inmates an opportunity to become familiar with construction processes as they develop from time to time so that when they are released they may fit more easily into our economy and be able to perform some useful function in society by working in the construction industry or in some other .trade which they

Supp ly-J ustice
may learn while they are in the institution. Certainly work of that nature would be of great assistance in the rehabilitation and reformation processes that are necesary to ensure to the greatest possible extent that inmates, when they are released, have less chance of going back to the penitentiary than they have had in years gone by.
I support the idea completely. We should do as much as is humanly possible to ensure that inmates in penal institutions are employed in building new penitentiaries and all the other work connected with them. I would go beyond the thought of confining that sort of work to within the penitentiary itself. This might not be feasible in some cases because of security reasons in the case of life sentences of the individuals concerned, and so on, but there is a great field in penal institutions for inmates to be employed on public projects outside of the penitentiary itself, or outside of these penal institutions. In some of the institutions under provincial jurisdiction in British Columbia inmates are used in forestry work and in things of that nature, all of which is beneficial. They are performing the work while in the penitentiary, and the inmate is being assisted to fit into society more easily after he is released.
I hope the hon. member for Essex East was not trying to leave the impression that penitentiary inmates should be confined to doing menial work in their cells or to building benches and doing little repair jobs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course not. What I was seeking to emphasize was not so much who did the actual job but who should be responsible for the project, whether it should be public works or whether it should be the Department of Justice. The extent of participation by prisoners is a matter that would obviously have to be determined in the context, but the main consideration was whether or not there should be in so far as possible, a decentralization. Can the minister tell the committee how many architects the Department of Justice has?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have four architects.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I suggest to the minister that he should look into this particular division. I do not quarrel with the department having architects or an architect. I would not want to specify what the number should be, but I am going to suggest to the minister that this does look like an unusually large number of officials. It may seem that in suggesting that I agree in principle with the department having an architect I am contradicting the position I took earlier with regard to greater centralization.
[Mr. Howard.)


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I make a correction. There are five architects, one architect grade 4, three architects grade 2 and one architect grade 1.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was just saying that I may have seemed to contradict myself in agreeing to this department having an architectural division or a division of architects when I had taken the position that there should be a greater centralization of these functions in the Department of Public Works. The minister mentioned that there were 10 penal institutions. When my hon. friend compares that with the number of institutions under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Health and Welfare, for instance, he will see that the latter has many more buildings to be concerned with, large hospitals, Indian hospitals and other kinds of institutions, which I should think would run to well over 35 in number. That department has one architect, or perhaps two now.
The requirements in the case of an architect with respect to the building of a hospital are certainly much more complicated than in the building of an institution whose architectural design is not as important as its functional purposes. I suggest to the minister, in view of the charges of unnecessary expenditure which he and others made while sitting on this side, in view of the fact that they said they were going to economize, that the minister, though he is not a member of treasury board, could right in his own department even at this late date, having been in office now for 18 months-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Two years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Two years-seize this opportunity, in view of the suggestions made with the best of intentions by those of us on this side, to effect the economies which were widely proclaimed from one end of Canada to the other and which undoubtedly made a considerable impression on many people in this country. In the two years the hon. gentlemen have been in office we have had no example whatsoever of any major cut in expenditure.
It may be that the Minister of Justice could give his colleagues an example to follow. He has given them an example in other particulars. I suggest to him that this is another opportunity for him to strengthen the very great position he occupies in the present government. If he could establish himself as an economizer, as a ruthless administrator who none the less took into account the ends of justice, who knows but that one day, and perhaps soon, he might be minister of finance instead of being Minister of Justice.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister will recall the views of his colleagues and himself on the desirability of centralizing these activities in the Department of Public Works wherever possible. I recall the present Minister of Public Works insisting that the responsibility as to construction even with respect to our embassies and offices in foreign countries should be in the hands of the Department of Public Works.
I have before me the details with respect to this item as found on page 226, from which the minister no doubt has quoted. In contrast to the situation which the hon. member for Essex East mentioned as existing in the department of National Health and Welfare, it shows that there is a chief, architectural and engineering division, and that there are also four engineers and five architects.


Mr. Crestohl:: Mr. Chairman, while we are discussing the use of inmate labour, will the minister tell us what safeguards are taken to see that there is no undue exploitation of such labour? Is there some system by which compensation is provided to the prisoners for various types of labour? Do they get a certain amount of time off for the work they perform, or are they paid? Is there a difference drawn between the more competent and specialized type of labour and ordinary labour? For example, there may be bricklayers, plasterers or painters who are qualified in a specialized way, or possibly even an architect who is an inmate. When such people are used are they compensated on an equal basis with all other workers, or is there additional compensation available for those who are more specialized and who create an economy for the government through the very fact that they are specialists and are more highly skilled? What system exists to extend such recognition in keeping with various levels of skill?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are three grades. I do not know that I can give every consideration that is taken into account in setting the grades, but generally speaking they are based on the attitude of the inmate, his industry and application to the work he asks to do, his attitude toward the staff, his attitude toward rehabilitation and so on, plus the factor of his aptitude at the particular trade.
This whole subject is one of those which fall within the scope of those referred to the correctional planning committee, who are to bring forward recommendations as to the type of rehabilitational training program or changes, modifications and advances that might be made particularly in the new types of institutions.
Supply-Justice


Mr. Woolliams:: Just before this item
carries I should like to direct one or two questions to the minister. I understand there has been a committee examining various sites in western Canada with a view to penitentiary construction. I might preface these remarks by saying that Alberta is the only province in the west that does not have a penitentiary.
I am interested also in the fact that in the Drumheller area two coal mines have been abandoned and the Department of Labour has declared the area a surplus labour area. There are about 300 or 400 men out of work in this area. I am interested in determining how many sites were visited by the committee, and whether or not we might have the report of that committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry, but I do not have the correctional planning committee record before me. I cannot speak from the document as to exactly how many sites were visited, but I know they have inspected personally a number of sites, and I am quite sure that one member of the committee at least visited Drumheller. The committee will be returning here at the end of the month and I expect to receive, not later than the end of the year at the latest, their final report which will include recommendations as to where new institutions should be situated.


Mr. McFarlane:: Before we pass this item I should like to add my recommendation to those already made for proposed construction of penitentiaries in western Canada. At the moment I am not very interested in the type of construction, but I am interested in the location. We have already established a precedent in the establishment and construction of a penitentiary at Springhill. I should like to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that the city of Fernie in my area is in a similar situation. There is no industry now in the area to take up the slack and bring back the economy of this East Kootenay area.
There are other aspects of the matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. We have a very desirable community. It is well established, with good homes for the personnel which would result in considerable saving because there would be no necessity for constructing homes such as there would be if the penitentiary were located elsewhere. In addition, the city of Fernie is centrally located in that part of western Canada. At the present time the penitentiary in New Westminster is encroaching on the business and industrial area. If a penitentiary were established at Fernie

Supply-J ustice
there would be plenty of room and the penitentiary would not encroach on the civic area.
I have already dealt with the situation in so far as transportation is concerned. This has ceased to be a problem. In addition, we have the support of all the organizations in the province of British Columbia which have recommended the establishment of a penitentiary in the Fernie area. In this connection I should like to refer to Hansard of last year and to the remarks made by the hon. member for New Westminster, as reported at page 3203:
It is not often that a city wants to move an institution which has a payroll and a purchasing power such as that of the British Columbia penitentiary; but as far as the city of New Westminster is concerned, it will be very glad to get rid of it because it is situated in the centre of the city.
I predict that within 20 years it will be situated in the centre of the greater Vancouver area. We in the city of New Westminster feel that the penitentiary is located on a spot that is unsuitable for that purpose. It is situated in the centre of a growing district, one of the most populous districts in the province of British Columbia. I would ask the minister for assurance that within the next five or ten years the penitentiary will be moved.
He also supports the contention that the penitentiary should be moved to the Fernie area. I notice that a certain amount of money is again being expended on the penitentiary at New Westminster. Perhaps if the minister is giving consideration to making the move, this expenditure should be reconsidered. I would respectfully ask the minister if he would give this matter serious consideration.


Mr, Fulton:: I can assure the hon. member and other hon. members who are interested in the question of construction and location of new institutions in western Canada that this is one of the things that will be given most careful consideration. I am well aware of the situation around Fernie, and I am well aware also of the concern of the hon. member who has just spoken that the needs and suitability of that area should be given every proper consideration. I assure him that they will be.
When we get the committee's report we shall be able to come to some final conclusion. As I have assured my hon. friend and others who have written me on behalf of Fernie on previous occasions, the suitability of that location will be most carefully investigated. Then with respect to the fact we are spending money at New Westminster, notwithstanding the fact that a move from New Westminster might be indicated, I can only say we are not spending a great deal of money on the British Columbia penitentiary. The only new construction is a new warehouse building at a total cost of $30,000. In general, of course, it is necessary for

us to maintain a proper institution at that point as long as we have it there and until we finally come to move it.


Mr. Roberge:: I should like to ask a further question of the minister with regard to the construction work done by inmates. If I properly understood the question put by the hon. member for Cartier, he wanted to know if time off was awarded to prisoners for work done on construction. The minister, in his answer, did not elucidate that point.
I know that standard regulations call for inmates receiving one day off per week for good behaviour, but that is not automatic and depends upon the warden. Is there any automatic time off for work done on construction or maintenance by prisoners?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman, the awarding of time off is not made specifically with reference to the work done by an inmate in any type of labour that has been described. The work he does and his attitude to that work would be part of the general consideration upon which time off was awarded. However, work on construction projects is not singled out for special award of time off, because not all inmates are employed on that type of work. Whatever work they do, and their attitude toward the performance of that work, are factors taken into account in assessing whether or not a prisoner qualifies for time off.


Gabriel Roberge: Then there is only one regulation for automatic time off?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is general, and I would say it is a maximum of six days a month for the first year of confinement and ten days for all subsequent years. As I said, whether or not an inmate is entitled to the maximum depends upon a number of factors including his attitude and his performance on whatever work may be assigned to him.


Leon David Crestohl: May I ask for a little further clarification in connection with this construction. A day put in on construction by an architect or by a specialist inmate creates an economy for the government of say $20, and a day put in by an ordinary labourer inmate creates an economy for the government of say $5. One man creates an economy of saving to the country of $20 and the other one of $5. Is there any yardstick for measuring the recognition which each man should receive? Is there any priority or recognition given to one over the other?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not believe so, and I do not believe there should be. This would mean that different classes of inmates would be * entitled to earn greater remission than others. If I understand my hon. friend's

suggestion correctly, it would mean that if an architect had run afoul of the law and were serving a sentence, then the time off he got should be measured by his professional skill; whereas a day labourer, for example, who is also an inmate should have his entitlement to time off measured on a somewhat lower scale. I do not think that procedure would be at all equitable, and I hope we shall never see such a system in operation in the penitentiaries.


Leon David Crestohl: I agree with the minister.


Gabriel Roberge: Can the minister advise the committee as to the number of hours of work put in by an inmate in one day?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The maximum is eight hours. The maximum work period that can be performed is eight hours, and that can be done only at a smaller institution like Valleyfield and William Head where there is no big administration problem. Inmates cannot be out working unless staff is there to supervise, and the staff works on an eight hour day. In a small institution work can commence almost immediately the staff move out on the job, but in the larger institutions the actual hours during which inmates can work are reduced in accordance with the size of the staff and the administrative problem of getting things going.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
528. Construction, improvements and equipment- further amount required, $572,436.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say why such a large supplementary item was required?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The total asked for is $572,436, of which the main components are $119,710 for the new institution in the province of Quebec-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was not asking the minister for any details. I was just wondering why such a large amount was required. I was wondering whether there had been rather poor estimating when the additional amount asked for is over half a million dollars.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. We expect to start with the work on the new institution in the Spring-hill area of Nova Scotia, and there is an amount of $200,000 provided for the acquisition of the necessary land.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was not contemplated at the time of the main estimates?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am satisfied with that answer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-J ustice
162. To increase by $400 a year the allowance payable to Mrs. Alice Joynson, pursuant to Chapter 11 of the statutes of 1914, and to increase by $300 a year the allowance payable to Mrs. Jean Laird Farrell, pursuant to Chapter 76 of the statutes of 1927; such increases to be effective from the 1st day of April, 1959, $700.
Gabriel Roberge: This is the last item of the estimates of the Department of Justice. The question I wish to ask does not relate at all to this item. However, I want to refer to page 4914 of Hansard of June 18, where the minister is reported to have said that he would give the committee a breakdown of the persons working in the office of the Solicitor General before his estimates were completed. That is to be found in the second column on page 4914.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think my officials prepared for me a breakdown of the staff in the office of the Solicitor General. I had it with me, but I do not think it was called for and I did not hand it in while the administration item was before us. I could get it and table it the first thing this afternoon.


Gabriel Roberge: We shall be satisfied if we have it tabled when we come to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will hand it in at the opening of this afternoon's sitting.


The Chairman:: Shall vote 162 carry?


Gabriel Roberge: With that restriction.


Mr. Peters:: Has that to do with this matter of pensions?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. I was asked on an earlier occasion for a breakdown showing the persons working in the office of the Solicitor General. I undertook to produce it. My officials prepared it for me, but I do not think it was referred to again and I neglected to hand it in. I have just said that I will hand it in at the opening of the sitting this afternoon.


William Arnold Peters: On this matter of pensions I have a question or two. Have these pensions been evaluated or raised to a reasonable level? There has been an increase, but is this level sufficient? Does it bring them in line with other pensions?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am told that they come in line with the provisions made by the workmen's compensation boards in the various provinces for those who have been injured or who have lost their lives under similar circumstances.


William Arnold Peters: Does what the minister has said relate to the compensation rate now or in
the past? One of these pensions goes away

Supply-Justice
back to 1914. Is the compensation rate based on earnings at that time or on the cost of living at the present time? It seems to me that the pensions are extremely low and are insufficient to maintain anybody under present conditions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think there are only three pensions under this item.


William Arnold Peters: Two.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps my hon. friend is talking about the statutory item, which technically is not before the committee.


William Arnold Peters: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can say that I am informed that, in the discussions with treasury board, treasury board say they are prepared to authorize only the level comparable to that being paid by provinces. From time to time there are adjustments, depending on the adjustments that may be made in the level of provincial compensation.


[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.

[Stage Direction]
Headquarters administration and national police services-
362. Operation and maintenance, $6,270,114.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I intend to discuss one aspect and one aspect only of the administration of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and that is the matter of the refusal of the minister or of the government [DOT]-and I intend to say something about which it was in the course of my remarks-to reinforce the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Newfoundland when the attorney general of that province requested this government to do so on March 11 last. I realize that anyone speaking on this subject under the rules of the committee is under certain disabilities, and I am going to make every effort to be strictly relevant to the rules. I recognize, as I said in another context last night, that the question of the meaning of this contract and the contractual obligations thereunder are before the courts. While I have my own opinion as to what that means, I recognize it would not be proper to debate that question in this place when it is being concurrently considered in another place and is therefore sub judice. I also intend to avoid any discussion of the situation in Newfoundland that made the attorney general of the

province in his wisdom ask for these reinforcements, because it seems to me it would be wholly improper for us in this chamber under our federal system of government, to be debating matters which are within provincial jurisdiction. I certainly do not intend in this opening statement of mine, to enter into that at all, and I hope that other hon. members intend to follow the rules of this house in the same way.
In order to give the background of what I want to say I would like to ask members of the committee to cast their minds back to March 11 last when something not quite unprecedented but I think very unusual in the experience of most of us in this house happened. I have been in Ottawa a rather close observer of parliament since the year 1937 and the session of 1938, and it has almost invariably been the rule for the minister of justice, no matter who occupied that office, when questions were asked about the administration of justice within a province to point out that that matter was a purely provincial one and to give no further answer. I think that what the Minister of Justice did on March 11 at 2.30 in the afternoon was right. Here was a situation that did, not directly but indirectly, affect the members of this house, and the minister gave what I regard as a wholly admirable, just and fair statement of the situation with respect to the mounted police as it was up until that time. It was a statement every word of which I agree with, a statement which I consider wholly admirable and proper, and I want to emphasize that very strongly.
I will not read the whole statement into the record, but I would like to emphasize one or two points which the minister made with regard to this matter. At page 1825 of Hansard for March 11 he said:
The fact that there is a strike, however, does not relieve the police of their responsibilities in this field-
The minister had just referred to law enforcement in the preceding paragraph; and if the minister feels I am not reading enough, I am sure he will tell me.
-but on the contrary imposes upon them extra duties of taking precautions-
And I emphasize the words "extra duties".
-to see that the tension and bad feelings engendered are not in fact allowed to result in general lawlessness and violence. They must-
And I emphasize that word too.
-protect the public-and this includes those involved in the dispute-against the possibility of excesses arising out of the tense situation.
In addition, under strike conditions there arises the further obligation of enforcing section 366 of the Criminal Code, which deals specifically with picketing and makes it unlawful for anyone engaged in picketing to use violence or threats of violence

to any person, or intimidation, or to indulge in disorders. In particular, section 366 makes it unlawful to block or obstruct the highways.
The following paragraph I would also like to read:
It will thus be seen that under strike conditions the police are bound to be called upon from time to time-
Bound to be called upon from time to time.
-to perform special duties such, for instance, as to make sure roads are kept open for traffic. Under normal conditions the necessity for such action does not arise, but under strike conditions it is a specific duty they have to perform.
Then on the following page, page 1826, in the first column, the second paragraph-the minister had given some account of what happened, which I do not think is necessary for me to enter-the minister said:
As I have stated, the actions of the police in this very difficult situation have been entirely preventive.
I emphasize again "entirely preventive". This is the minister in charge of the force speaking. Perhaps I should say the minister responsible for the force.
Their actions have been limited to enforcing the provisions of the Criminal Code against assault, damage to property, acts of violence, obstruction of roads and other similar provisions.
Furthermore, the position of the police as I have described it has been outlined by responsible police officers to the union officials concerned, by whom it has been accepted. In addition the police have been at pains, in all cases where picket lines have been established or where men have gathered on the roads, to explain to them the limits imposed upon their activities by the Criminal Code.
This is the minister giving his account of the way in which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police conducted themselves in central Newfoundland, and as I said before I think the minister gave an entirely accurate statement of what happened.
Then he said a little further on:
Since there have been a number of accusations made against the police which have arisen in the main out of three major incidents, I should give here a factual account of what actually took place on those occasions, because the facts demonstrate most clearly that the police have only acted when the provisions of the Criminal Code have been violated.
The only other paragraph I want to read is the concluding paragraph of the minister's statement in which he said:
I am satisfied from my investigation that there is no foundation for any suggestion that the police have permitted themselves to be used as strikebreakers. I am also satisfied that they have acted strictly within the limits of their duties in connection with the enforcement of the criminal law as these duties are multiplied under the circumstances of a strike. Indeed, it is apparent that the approximately 150 police involved have done a thoroughly
Supply-Justice
creditable job in their efforts to preserve the peace over a long period under most trying and difficult circumstances.

But there is every reason to believe that when the minister made that statement he must have been aware, or, at least, he should have been aware, of the fact that every possible physical provision had been made for the reinforcement of the force in central Newfoundland and that no doubt had been expressed to anyone that these reinforcements would be sent if requested. I emphasize that point because of what happened afterwards. We know that before that evening was over- and I am speaking here from recollection- it was announced on the ten o'clock news that the reinforcements were not being sent. I should not say it was announced; it was stated in the news. I do not know the exact sequence of events because I have no responsibility for doing anything but listen and try to find out what the facts were.
But we do know from what has subsequently been brought before us in this house and told us by the minister that some time before the end of that day the attorney general communicated with the minister about what had happened and, not receiving satisfaction from the minister, he then communicated with the premier of the province who in turn communicated with the Prime Minister in a telegram which I have asked the Prime Minister more than once to put on the record. I regret to say that this has never been done until now. The telegram

Supply-Justice
dated March 11, 1959 is addressed to the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker and reads:
The Attorney General of Newfoundland informs me that the Minister of Justice of Canada has cancelled temporarily the dispatch of 50 additional officers of the R.C.M.P. for duty in the present emergency in central Newfoundland. Newfoundland has a solemn contract with your government couched in terms identical with the contracts signed by Canada with seven other provinces. Under this solemn contract Canada upon request of the provincial attorney general covenants to provide additional R.C.M.P. officers to deal with emergency conditions such as presently exist in central Newfoundland. The R.C.M.P. in Newfoundland informed our attorney general that at least 50 additional men were needed at once and the commissioner in Ottawa was so informed. He agreed to supply the men and so informed us. An aircraft was chartered by the R.C.M.P. to bring the men to Newfoundland to arrive at 9.30 tonight. This disposes of the question of the availability of the men. We are astonished to learn that their departure has been stopped for a cabinet meeting in Ottawa notwithstanding the fact that the contract gives the Canadian attorney general the right to refuse additional men in an emergency only if they are not available. The commissioner has already made them available so that this is no reason. I now ask you to supply us with the additional R.C.M.P. men to enable us to maintain law and order in this emergency according to the contract that exists between us. If you cannot or will not do so will you undertake to have the government of Canada take over the task of maintaining law and order in central Newfoundland. If you will not give us the police to do it as the contract requires you to do then will you take on the responsibility yourselves of maintaining law and order in this emergency.
We were also informed that no immediate reply was sent by the Prime Minister to that message. I say that in my experience the fact that no reply was sent to that message was an almost unprecedented act by a Prime Minister of Canada, and I am not going to waste my time or the time of the committee by characterizing the way that I and practically everyone in Newfoundland felt about it. But I may say the Prime Minister's predecessor would not have treated the premier of any province in the way the premier of Newfoundland was treated in this particular situation by the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had experience for over 20 years as a close associate of two prime ministers, one of whom had a very bitter controversy, as everyone knows, with one of the provincial premiers, and never once in that time did Mr. Mackenzie King fail in ordinary courtesy to that premier.


An hon. Member:: Not a five cent piece.


Some hon. Members:: Not another nickel.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I regret to interrupt hon. members but I must remind the committee

that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate has the floor. There are far too many speakers at the present moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I may say that the following morning the newspapers contained the story that these police reinforcements had not been sent to Newfoundland. One of my friends, commenting to me about this situation where there was an emergency, where action was required and where action was not taken and where we were told that the government had not been able to make up its mind, said: this is not like a government; this is like a school girl who cannot make up her mind whether or not to accept a date.
On March 12 I asked the Minister of Justice several questions in the house as reported on page 1864 of Hansard, and I want to remind the committee of those questions. I asked the hon. gentleman:
I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Justice if, as reported in the press, he stopped the transfer to Newfoundland of additional members of the R.C.M.P. requested by the attorney general of the province under section 13 of the intergovernmental agreement; and if so, on what grounds?
And the answer was:
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the hon. member's question is that the authority of the attorney general of Canada is required before any reinforcements are sent to any province, and the authority has not yet been given.
I do not want to read all this. I would just as soon merely read the minister's answers. The minister's answer to my second question was:
The matter is still under consideration,-
People's lives were in danger, and the matter was still under consideration. The minister went on:
-and I am not able to answer the hon. gentleman's question at this time.
I then asked whether the men had been assembled, and the Speaker suggested I was seeking to engage in a debate. I raised a point of order and was permitted to ask a further question to which I got from the minister a reply. The courteous reply I got from the minister was:
The Minister of Justice requires no lecture from the hon. gentleman as to solemn obligations. The matter is under consideration, as I have already stated.
I then asked the minister whether he had received any communication from the attorney general of the province and he said:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have, and I was in communication with him last night.
Then I asked the Prime Minister whether he had received a communication from the premier and the reply I received from the

Prime Minister I think ought to go on the record. The Prime Minister's reply was:
Mr. Speaker, the close relationship between the government of Newfoundland and the hon. gentleman would no doubt provide an answer to his question.
It seems to me that that, too, is a sample of a the kind of arrogant attitude that we get from this government at all times when serious matters are under consideration, and I leave it to speak for itself. But what went on? From Wednesday until the following Monday this crisis went on and this government could not make up its mind; I say "this government", I say this minister could not make up his mind because it was the minister who had the duty to make up his mind. I say that it should not have taken the minister five days before he had the fortitude to come to grips with that matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The courage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The fortitude to come to
grips with it, and I have no admiration and I do not think the country has for this shrinking violet approach. I think the public were not impressed by the minister fiddling about with this matter and mincing up to it and then backing away from it in a most extraordinary manner.


Mr. Fraser:: We had a Liberal government for 22 years and they were mincing and fiddling.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And his failure to do what, his lack of fortitude to do what as a member of the government accepting his responsibility he should have done.


Mr. Morton:: What page are you reading from now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am reading, as the hon. member no doubt knows, from the Minister of Justice's remarks.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In another debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In another debate, and if the Minister of Justice objects to my reading from another debate I will desist. I said we had an extraordinary spectacle the other day of this minister who took five days, when men's lives were in danger, to decide whether he should or should not act, talking about someone else's courage and that was some spectacle, sir.


Murray Douglas Morton: The record speaks for itself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I come now to what happened when after five days-


Mr. Walker:: Five days?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I observe the hon. member for Rosedale is now intervening in the debate. When I have concluded what I have to say
Supply-Justice
I hope the hon. member for Rosedale will get up and make a defence, if he can make a defence, of the indefensible conduct of the minister. I do not think he will.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: That is your opinion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is my opinion, yes, and we shall soon see. And now, sir, what happened on March 16 when, finally, after five days, this government at last had reached a conclusion about this matter?


Some hon. Members:: Five days.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What did we have after five days. We had a very extraordinary situation arise. We had the Prime Minister come in here and make a statement about a matter that was not the responsibility of the government but was the exclusive responsibility, under an agreement, of one minister.
We dealt with the legislation only yesterday that gives to the minister this power, and I raised some questions at that time about giving that power to the minister but the power was in the minister, the obligation was on the minister, and yet what did we have? We had the Prime Minister come in here and make this statement. I read from page 1959 of Hansard of March 16. The Prime Minister began:
I think the house would wish to know that late last week I received two telegrams from the premier of Newfoundland, the first regarding a request that 50 additional Royal Canadian Mounted Police constables be sent to that province, and the second requesting the setting up of a judicial inquiry into the troubles that have occurred there.
While this government has no intention of infringing on matters under provincial jurisdiction, I feel impelled to say that the premier of Newfoundland has greatly aggravated the present situation in that province by intervening in a labour dispute in a way which apparently goes beyond the usual role of government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not imagine that any member from the province of Quebec has said, "Hear, hear". In all the experience I have ever had this is the most flagrant intervention by any Prime Minister of Canada in the provincial affairs of any province. The Prime Minister continued:
The result, as might have been anticipated, has been a violent reaction on the part of the workers concerned.
I do not know how the Prime Minister knew that, and I am not going to discuss that point, but here is what the Prime Minister said next, and this point I do want to underline and emphasize:
Under the circumstances we have concluded that it would be provocative and likely to cause further outbreaks of violence to authorize the sending of further members of the R.C.M.P. at this time.

Supply-Justice
"We have concluded", not "I have concluded". This is not the Minister of Justice speaking, this is the Prime Minister usurping the functions of the Minister of Justice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, nonsense; absolute nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will deal with the nonsense.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So will I, I am going to deal with your nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No doubt the minister is, and if we deal with it each in our turn it will be better.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Don't make such silly statements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: "Under the circumstances we have concluded that it would be provocative". No one knows better than you, sir, a distinguished lawyer in the province of Quebec who is familiar with the constitution, that it is the exclusive responsibility of the provincial authorities to administer justice in the provinces.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It used to be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or it used to be, as my leader has pointed out. But here we have, because of an arrangement, an arrangement on which the province up to five days before had every reason to believe it could rely, the Prime Minister, without any knowledge of the facts, as his previous statement shows, arrogating to himself and to his colleagues the functions of an attorney general of a province. That is what happened, because there can be no question that in the province of Quebec where they have provincial police it would not be possible for the minister to do this; but because the provincial authorities in a smaller and poorer province had made an arrangement which the minister last night said he believed to be a good one, for that reason it is deprived of its rights, deprived of the necessary instrument on which it had every right to rely in order to carry out those rights. That is what the Prime Minister's statement means and it is all that it can mean.
Then he went on to reinforce that with another sentence. I do not intend to read the whole statement unless I am asked to do so, but he went on to make this extraordinary observation, no doubt out of his vast knowledge of what was going on in Newfoundland:
I would think that the danger of disorder and violence would be very much reduced if all those concerned would agree to a cooling off period of say two weeks.
Here was a situation where a man had been killed. Here was a situation where the

whole population of an area was tense and where, if ever, there should be more than adequate police in order to make sure that the situation did not deteriorate. But what do we have from the Prime Minister? No police but just this appeal for a cooling off.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And they did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman thinks that what happened afterward was the result of anything said by the Prime Minister I am afraid I would find it difficult to agree with him.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sure you would, knowing you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to come now to what the Minister of Justice had to say in justification. The Minister of Justice contradicted the Prime Minister. The Minister of Justice, I think, took the proper legal view. I must say, speaking personally, that I would have more respect for the legal opinion of the Minister of Justice than I would for the legal opinion of the Prime Minister, but that is a matter of personal preference and I think here the Minister of Justice was right and the Prime Minister was wrong. I want to refer to what the Minister of Justice said, dealing precisely with this point, as found at page 1960 of Hansard for March 16. He gave various reasons but I want to read first this sentence found about a quarter of the way down the second column:
It is also clear that the ultimate responsibility for the decision rests on the Attorney General of Canada.
In my view that is right. As hon. gentlemen know, I have had some experience in government myself. I was charged with the administration of certain acts of parliament that imposed certain duties upon the minister, and those duties were imposed by parliament upon the minister, not upon the government. Where they were imposed upon the minister the view that was always taken by the prime minister under whom I served was that the minister himself must take that responsibility. That did not preclude his seeking advice from his colleagues-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Exactly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -but I cannot imagine any circumstances in which a duty was imposed upon a minister when Mr. St. Laurent would ever have come into the house and used words such as the Prime Minister used.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I am very sorry to have to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, well, we are in committee.


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I appreciate the committee giving me the opportunity to complete my remarks in a single sequence. I was just saying that I cannot imagine any circumstances in which, when a clear duty was imposed by parliament upon a minister, Mr. St. Laurent would have come into the house and made the statement which the Prime Minister made, "Under the circumstances we have concluded." I say that the forms of our institutions are just as important to preserve as the substance, and even if it were the fact, and I am not sure it was, that the Prime Minister did impose upon the Minister of Justice the statement should not have been put in that form.
Let us see what reasons the Minister of Justice gave for taking the position he took on March 16 in relation to what he said as to the situation on March 11, the day on which the request was made. Here is what the minister said, as found at page 1960 of Hansard:
Following the clash that took place on the highway outside the town of Badger on Tuesday evening, March 10. the situation apparently deteriorated further and Superintendent Parsons advised the commissioner that in view of the movement of 100 further strikers into the area, he felt that the call for reinforcements should be renewed.
On receipt of this information from the commissioner on Wednesday morning, I approved-
I find I have to amend something about which I spoke from recollection earlier. When the minister made the statement on Wednesday afternoon, March 11, he had already approved-
-his taking the steps necessary to gather the men in the maritimes who had been alerted, and to have air transportation arranged. I told him, however, that while these steps were to be taken as a precaution I was not giving authority for the plane to take off from Moncton, and that this was not to take place until I had an opportunity to consider the situation further and to consult with my colleagues with regard to it.
That is the situation, and that consultation, as I have said several times before, took five days.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend should read the next sentence which disposes entirely of the inaccurate statement he has just made and proves that what he said was incorrect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be very glad to do so. I told the minister at the beginning that I would be very glad to read any additional part and I will be very glad to do so. The
Supply-Justice
minister does not need to be provocative about it. I will be glad to do it any time he asks.
The commissioner thereupon Informed me-


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, the next sentence, which shows that it did not take five days but that a decision was taken that afternoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I beg the minister's pardon.
I certainly was not deliberately trying to omit it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If any hon. gentleman wishes to make the suggestion that I was he can make it.
These consultations were held on Wednesday afternoon, and it was decided that a state of readiness should be maintained but that reinforcements should not be dispatched at that time.
That was no decision. That was postponement of a decision, a postponement that endured, as I have already said, for five days. I want to come now to the minister's reasons for refusing ultimately, five days later, to send these reinforcements. Here is what he said as found on page 1961:
I do not accept, and the government of Canada cannot accept, that an issue of this importance- whether reinforcements should be sent under the circumstances such as existed here-can be decided on the basis of a mere mathematical calculation as to whether men are physically available.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, so far I have refrained from interrupting the hon. member on a point of order, the point of order having to do with the sub judice rule, because the hon. gentleman has been reciting the facts and giving his opinion about them which he is entitled to do and to which I am entitled to reply, and to which I shall, but I think the hon. gentleman is now coming inescapably to the issue that is before the courts, the issue of whether it was right or wrong to refuse to send these reinforcements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Whether there was a contractual right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Discussion of that issue inescapably involves discussion of the issue that is before the courts. If the hon. gentleman is going to discuss the reasons which I gave at the time I shall have to defend them and we will inevitably drift into an improper debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When I reached the reference to "mere mathematical calculation" I realized at that point that what the minister is saying is quite right, but I think we must be very clear about what is before the court and that is whether or not the contract was broken. I am not going to attempt to argue that at all. The minister is perfectly right



S108 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Justice
that we should not debate that in the house. I was inadvertently embarking on that and I apologize to the minister for doing so. But there is another point, that even had there not been a contract it seems to me that there was an obligation, and again I am not going to discuss the nature of that obligation. However, the minister did make one comment which I do not think could be at issue in the case, although I will refrain from discussing it if the minister thinks it is.
I should like to quote the last two full paragraphs in the next column. This has to do with the situation there but it does not seem to me that this is at issue in this context, although it is at issue in another argument I did want to pursue. My argument is as to whether or not there was an invasion of provincial rights. I quote:
As I appreciate the situation, therefore, the request made by the government of Newfoundland for Royal Canadian Mounted Police reinforcements takes on the character not of a request to assist in the normal function and duty of the province in maintaining law and order, but of a request for additional help made necessary in the course of the furtherance of a project to extinguish a union from the province.
Now about that, I should like to contrast that with what the minister said on March 11, as recorded on page 1826 of Hansard for that date:
As I have stated, the actions of the police in this very difficult situation have been entirely preventive. Their actions have been limited to enforcing the provisions of the Criminal Code against assault, damage to property, acts of violence, obstruction of roads and other similar provisions.
Now if that was true at 2.40 in the afternoon concerning what the mounted police were doing, what happened to change what they were being called upon to do, according to the minister, on March 16? What happened between three o'clock in the afternoon and six to change the whole obligation in this matter? This is what it is difficult for any objective observer to understand. Then, returning to the minister's statement on March 16, we find this:
We have also had to bear in mind the possibility that under these circumstances to send additional Royal Canadian Mounted Police into Newfoundland, instead of ensuring that the situation is kept under control, might act only as provocation to further incidents of violence and defiance, so there is no certainty that the sending of them would not do more to inflame the situation than to control it.
Now I say that that statement by the Minister of Justice of this country is an ar-rogation to himself of the functions of another person, serving in another government, who had the responsibility to the electorate for this situation. It was the inescapable responsibility under our constitution of the attorney
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
general of Newfoundland to maintain law and order in the province. It was not the responsibility of the Minister of Justice to arrogate that function to himself. Indeed, I think it was very bad taste-perhaps I would not go farther than that-for him to express any view about it. If he had merely expressed a view about it, that would have been one thing, but to take action to prevent the duly constituted authority who is responsible under our constitution to the legislature and through the legislature to the people-to say, my knowledge is so much greater; I am so superior, and I know so much more that I am going to substitute myself for those who were elected by the people of the province to perform this function-it seems to me is the greatest act of centralization that we have ever seen attempted by a federal government in the whole history of Canada.
That is my submission. I am not going to argue as to whether or not the contract obligated the government. I say that the decision taken by the government not to act, to refrain from providing these reinforcements, was an intrusion into the constitutional concerns of the provincial authorities and that it should be censured for this.
Mr. Stinson:: Tell us about this phony loggers' union.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman, who intervenes only rarely in our debates, is suggesting that I should deal with something that it would be quite out of order to discuss on the estimates of the Minister of Justice. I do not intend to break the rules of the house, even if the hon. member wishes to do so. I am going to continue to discuss the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the minister's administration of them. I am going to discuss only that matter and nothing else.
I maintain that whatever the contractual obligation may have been there was grave violence done to the constitution by the action taken by the minister. I say there was something even worse, there was a very grave affront to the unity of the country. In order to illustrate that point I should like to read, and to make my own-with this I intend to conclude-the observations made about this incident on March 18 in the News of St. John's. I should like to say, in referring to this editorial, that I am referring to an editorial in a newspaper that consistently supported hon. gentlemen opposite and has not supported us until very recently. The editorial is entitled, "The Inadequacies of Mr. Diefenbaker". It was provoked by and relates to this situation and I feel it accurately reflects the views

of most of the hon. gentleman's former friends in the province of Newfoundland. This is what it says:
Because of a feeling that John Diefenbaker was a towering figure in Canadian politics, we protested vigorously a few years ago the efforts of the Liberals to gerrymander him out of his seat in the House of Commons.
In 1956, we said here that he was the obvious choice to succeed George Drew as leader of the Conservative party.
In 1957 and 1958, we expressed the hope that he would lead the Conservatives to victory in Canada. We are not alone today in thinking that John Diefenbaker has failed to fulfil his earlier promise.
That thought has been growing in dimensions and expression during the past year. Yet nothing could more clearly reveal the inadequacies of Mr. Diefenbaker than his extraordinary contradiction of orders given by the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. in response to the request for reinforcements for central Newfoundland.
The consequence was revealed on Monday when a great career police officer, a man respected far beyond the borders of Canada for wisdom, ability and integrity, was compelled by the unaccountable intervention of the Prime Minister to resign his command.
Then there is a paragraph referring to the commissioner which is not strictly relevant. Although I should like to read it, I shall not do so out of consideration for the committee. The editorial continues:
In this intervention, Mr. Diefenbaker and his Minister of Justice did more than question the judgment and authority of Commissioner Nicholson. With complete disregard for the consequences, they denied necessary reinforcements for the tired men of the R.C.M.P. and Newfoundland constabulary in central Newfoundland, exposed them to danger, and compelled the provincial government to undermine the security of St. John's in order to send more provincial police to Grand Falls.
This was done without a proper inquiry into the situation in Newfoundland.
I think that is as far as I should read because the rest of it deals with questions that are not directly relevant. I want to end up my remarks by saying that it seems to me that the minister was grossly derelict in his duty and deserving of the censure of parliament for presuming to intervene in a matter that was entirely within provincial jurisdiction. Having waited until the last moment, having allowed the authorities in the province to have every reason to believe they could rely upon these reinforcements, whatever the contractual situation may have been, it was a very grave affront indeed to all the people of the province to take the action that was taken in this matter. I may say in concluding what I said on the budget, that I do not believe the people of this country will ever forget that this government in this crisis put themselves on the side of the lawbreaker rather than on the side of law and order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, a good deal of what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate has said, he has said with more heat
Supply-J ustice
than with light. I shall not attempt to answer him in kind. I shall just recite the facts because the facts give the answer to my hon. friend's exuberance as well as to all the baseless charges that he has laid. The facts, as a matter of fact, are so well known that I am surprised that the hon. gentleman would have thought that he could create in the minds of this committee-and no doubt he thought that if he could create it here, he could create it in the minds of others outside in the country-the impression that the facts are other than they are and the impression that there was something to be characterized by the words that he used such as "unwarranted invasions of provincial rights", "deserving of the censure of the house" and so on in what he says that we have done. Let us look at the facts. I think it will be more effective if I analyse the facts calmly than if I attempt to generate the same amount of heat as that generated by the hon. gentleman.
First of all, he suggests that there is something inconsistent and something somehow shameful in the fact that on Wednesday, March 11, I made a statement in which I praised the conduct of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in maintaining law and order on the one hand whereas, on March 16, I explained my reasons for refusing to send additional Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the province of Newfoundland. There is nothing inconsistent between those two positions. Certainly the responsibility of the men who were in Newfoundland under contract was to remain there and carry out the lawful orders that they received. That they did to the best of their ability under, as I have said on numerous occasions, extremely difficult circumstances. I had and still have nothing but admiration for the way in which they discharged those obligations. But the sending of reinforcements is a very different situation or a very different thing altogether. It is a very different thing to say that men there under a contract with responsibilities must remain there and carry out that contract and discharge those responsibilities to the best of their ability, as they did-that is very different from the position raised when we received a request to send fifty extra reinforcements in to take care of a situation which had been created, as the Prime Minister said, in large part by the extraordinary actions of the premier of that province.
It was with respect to the new situation which would be created by the sending in of fifty further reinforcements that I was called upon to exercise my judgment and to make my decision, and I did it. I was not called upon to exercise any judgment or to make any decision with regard to the men who were

Supply-Justice
already there and I scrupulously refrained from doing so. That is the difference in the situation and that disposes of the suggestion of my hon. friend that I was somehow inconsistent in refusing to send in reinforcements whereas I had previously praised the way in which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police there had conducted themselves. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I think I should point out this fact, although I want to be careful now, as I have been throughout, not to interfere or to suggest interference with provincial responsibility. I should point out that the fact is that there were no further outbreaks of violence after March 10; and notwithstanding our refusal to send Royal Canadian Mounted Police reinforcements there have been no further outbreaks of violence but in fact relative calm has returned to Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, not at this point, if my hon. friend does not mind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister's statement is not correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is particularly important in the light of the fact that the suggestion has been made on some occasions and was repeated in the editorial which my hon. friend last read that we should have sent these reinforcements because they were necessary to preserve the lives and the safety of the police already there.
I want to make this matter clear-and I have not answered this point before-that in the discussion with the former commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as to the advisability and the necessity of sending reinforcements, I questioned him most carefully as to whether, in his view, these reinforcements were necessary to protect the lives and safety of the men already there and whether he would say to me that without these reinforcements he feared that the lives and safety of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Newfoundland would be placed in danger. He was candid and straightforward about it and he said, that he did not put the question of reinforcements on that basis. He put it on the basis that the superintendent there had asked for reinforcements and in his view, he said, because of the uncertainty of being able to retain control of the situation, under those circumstances and under all the circumstances-including the fact that in his view the contract was clear-such reinforcements should be sent. I make that remark because I think it is important in the context that has been suggested in the editorial read by my hon. friend. I take it
[Mr. Fulton. 1
that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate adopted this editorial as his own and adopted the views expressed there as his own. Otherwise he would not have read it.
I want to point out also what the Prime Minister said on March 16, as reported at page 1959 of Hansard:
We feel that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has performed its duty with fairness and efficiency. The situation in Newfoundland will be kept constantly under review and if the mounted police, in the proper discharge of their duties are subject to or encounter intimidation or threats by lawbreakers reconsideration will be given immediately to this decision.
That is the decision not to send reinforcements. The fact of the matter is, that as events proved the mounted police then in Newfoundland, with the assistance of the extra men sent in from the Newfoundland constabulary, were able not only to maintain the situation but to restore law and order and, as I have said, relative calm now exists in that province.
I now want to deal for a moment with the five day issue. My hon. friend attempted to make a point that here we were with conditions of grave import, a request for reinforcements and that we shilly-shallied around for five days while we were trying to make up our minds what to do. Also coupled with that suggestion he made the extraordinary and unfounded suggestion that the Prime Minister had arrogated to himself a responsibility which was not his and had over-ridden what was the proper constitutional position.
Mr. Chairman, the request for reinforcements on this occasion was received on the early morning of March 11. Early that morning the commissioner informed me that the renewed request had been received. It is important to remember that this was a renewed request. It was not the first time a request for reinforcements had been made and had not been met. It was a renewed request. The commissioner informed me of this request in the early morning and also informed me, as I have stated to the house in my statement appearing at pages 1959 to 1962 of Hansard, of the steps that he had taken to gather men in the maritime provinces and to have air transportation available to transport them to Newfoundland. Here is what I said about it at the time:
On receipt of this information from the commissioner on Wednesday morning, I approved his taking the steps necessary to gather the men in the maritimes who had been alerted, and to have air transportation arranged.
This, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me, is but a prudent step to take because we knew that there was a tense situation in Newfoundland, and it was to have reinforcements

standing by. But it was my view immediately-and this was subsequently confirmed- that it was not incumbent upon us and it would not be wise immediately to send reinforcements. I therefore told the commissioner this, as I then in my statement pointed out in my statement:
I told him, however, that while these steps were to be taken as a precaution I was not giving authority for the plane to take off from Moncton, and that this was not to take place until I had an opportunity to consider the situation further and to consult with my colleagues with regard to it.
I would like to pause there to say that I think this discussion we are now having, as well as what I said on former occasions, should it seems to me lay at rest inferences which have been raised from time to time, and raised again in the editorial read by my hon. friend, that the Prime Minister intervened and countermanded an order of the commissioner. The decision not to send the plane was a decision of mine, and the suggestion put forward that it was made by someone else is a fabrication and utter nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why did the Prime Minister
say "we"?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friend will contain himself I will give him the answer. I said:
-this was not to take place-
That is the departure of the reinforcements.
[DOT]-until I had an opportunity to consider the situation further and to consult with my colleagues with regard to It.
Does my hon. friend suggest it was a breach of constitutional propriety for me to consult with my colleagues on an issue of this importance? Does he-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister asks me a question and I will answer it. I said the exact contrary. I said that the minister had a perfect right to consult his colleagues, and I think he has a perfect right to consult anyone else, as any minister has to consult anyone in whom he can repose confidence. But what I said was that it was the minister's decision and not the cabinet's decision, and therefore it was quite wrong for the Prime Minister to say "we".


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the seriousness of the hon. gentleman's criticism is showing now to be that he quarrels with the Prime Minister's use of an adjective-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Pronoun.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Pronoun-in a matter which had been before the cabinet on which the Minister of Justice had sought the collective opinion of his colleagues, as he was entitled to do, and as in a matter of this importance he was bound to do. I sought the opportunity
Supply-Justice
of discussing it with my colleagues and then came to a decision which I went on to point out later was clearly my decision. There is no question of that. Then because the Prime Minister said that "we" have concluded, after a discussion of that nature in cabinet, my hon. friend is trying to make something of the use of the word "we". Mr. Chairman, what a farce! What an indication of the weight of the case that the hon. gentleman tries to make because there is the use of a word which reflects the fact that there was mutual consultation. My hon. friend says the Prime Minister has subverted the constitution. What a farce, Mr. Chairman, and I cannot characterize it in any other way.
In the statement to which I am referring I went on to say:
These consultations were held on Wednesday afternoon, and it was decided that a state of readiness should be maintained but that reinforcements should not he dispatched at that time.
I want to skip from here for a moment to the-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question at this point?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister say, if that decision was reached on that day, why parliament was not told the following day when I asked the question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: You were told.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was told the matter was still under consideration, and it went on in that way for five days.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A statement was made on March 16, and I have just read it.
These consultations were held on Wednesday afternoon, and it was decided that a state of readiness should be maintained but that reinforcements should not be dispatched at that time.
There is no inconsistency between that and what the house was told on March 12. In a later passage of the statement to which I am referring, of March 16, in discussing the decision not to send reinforcements I said:
Afer weighing all these factors, and discussing them with my colleagues, I have come to the conclusion that the arguments against sending more men at this time outweigh the arguments in favour-
It is perfectly clear from that that the decision was mine and that I accepted responsibility for it. At another point in the statement which the hon. gentleman has already read I said that it was clear that before the government of Canada is required to dispatch reinforcements as requested the Attorney General of Canada must form the opinion that having regard to other responsibilities and duties of the force it is possible to send

Supply-Justice
reinforcements. I said it is also clear that the ultimate responsibility for the decision rests on the Attorney General of Canada. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that anything could make it clearer than that, and it could not be clearer except to those who refuse to understand that the decision was that of the Minister of Justice arrived at after consultation with his colleagues.
As to this five-day mirage which the hon. gentleman is attempting to raise, he will recall, and certainly the committee will recall, and I recall it very vividly, exactly what took place, which I think completely disposes of any suggestion of dithering or uncertainty on the part of the government. In my statement of March 16 I stated that the decision not to send reinforcements at that time was reached on the Wednesday afternoon and was immediately communicated to the then commissioner by me. At page 1960 of Hansard I went on to say:
The commissioner thereupon informed me that he could not agree with the decision-*
There was no thought in the then commissioner's mind that there was any uncertainty in the mind of the government, because he informed me that he could not agree with the decision.
-in view of his understanding of the effect of the contract, and that he would have to resign.
My hon. friend will appreciate, I think, Mr. Chairman, that this was an extremely serious and unwelcome piece of news, and I would have thought that if there was any suggestion of dithering or uncertainty on the part of myself-and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate used some rather interesting adjectives with regard to myself-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I only used the minister's own.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Entirely. He used adjectives which I had applied under quite different circumstances. What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that it is clear that there was no dithering, no uncertainty, no refusal to take responsibility for the situation, but quite the opposite; that in circumstances of great difficulty and faced with the resignation of a commissioner for whom I had a great personal admiration, as well as up to that time official confidence, I was able to maintain the decision and did in fact maintain the decision notwithstanding that it was fraught with these very serious consequences which I think I need not elaborate. That decision of the commissioner was communicated to me immediately. There was no five-day wait. The only reason the decision to resign was not announced in the house until March 16 was because it was my hope

that on the basis of further discussion, as I indicated clearly in the statement I made at the time, and suggestions to the commissioner that he might reconsider the position and would withdraw his resignation. However, he finally indicated to me that he was unprepared to do so, and as soon as it became obvious that his decision was final the situation was announced to the House of Commons without further delay. This, I think, completely disposes of the fabrication or mirage which the hon. gentleman has tried to raise that there was a five-day period during which the government could not make up its mind.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I think that really disposes of any substance there may have been in the criticisms advanced by the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman might have conducted himself differently, I do not know. He might have felt that faced with a matter as grave and unfortunate as the resignation of a commissioner he should accept it at once and not make any effort to have the commissioner reconsider it. I do not believe that is the proper way to act. I felt it was proper to make every effort to see if on proper grounds the decision might be reconsidered. I felt it was in the interests of the country as well as the officer whose services we are discussing that those efforts should be made. If that is to be taken as an accusation of indecision or improper conduct, I cannot change my hon. friend's mind, but that is the reason why there was a period of five days between the government's decision made then and the time of its announcement to the house.
So far as the accusation of interference with provincial sovereignty is concerned, it is, I think, too far-fetched to require a reply in detail. I will dispose of this merely by further reference to the fact that with respect to the R.C.M. Police who were there under contract there was not the slightest effort to interfere with the orders given to them or the manner in which they discharged their responsibility. It was not until a request was made involving a decision and a responsibility by this government that we accepted that responsibility and made that decision and it is to me inconceivable that it should be suggested by any hon. member, particularly by an hon. member who has had past experience of government administration, that the exercise by this government of the responsibility it was bound to take with respect to whether it should take action at this level-


John Whitney Pickersgill: A point of order. I was scrupulous to refrain from discussing this question of the contractual obligation, and I think the minister should do the same.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not dealing with the question of contractual obligation. I am dealing with the accusation made by the hon. member that in refusing to send reinforcements, and giving our reasons for not doing so, we were infringing provincial sovereignty, and it is, as I say, inconceivable to me that any hon. gentleman who has had previous experience in government should suggest that a government, in taking a decision it is bound to take in the exercise of its responsibility, is guilty of invading the sovereignty of another government. Yet that is the charge which the hon. gentleman has made.
We gave our reasons on an earlier occasion for the refusal to send reinforcements. I do not think that any argument which the hon. gentleman has advanced here today contains anything which would cause a reasonable person to change the view to which we then came. It is, however, a fact that in discussing the basic reasons why we reached that decision both the hon. gentleman and I must have regard to the fact that this involves an issue which is now before the court-an issue, I would point out, which was placed before the court by the premier of Newfoundland and not by us-the question of whether our interpretation of the contract was right or not. Since I cannot discuss further the reasons why I came to our decision without discussing the contract, I do not think I should go any further at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are one or two comments I should like to make on what the minister said. The hon. gentleman stated- and I asked him then if he would permit a question, but he declined-that the fact was that there were no further disorders after March 10. That statement is incorrect. On the day that the body of this unfortunate policeman was taken to the train there was, as the minister knows, a very unfortunate incident in which the lives of certain people were, in fact, in danger and in which certain property was destroyed or at least seriously damaged. So that statement of the minister's is not correct and it is only by good fortune which, I am sure, the minister would not claim to have had the prescience to have foreseen, that that incident was not very much more serious than it was. Not only that, it is a fact that, because of the minister's refusal to send these reinforcements, the city of St. John's was practically denuded of its police. I suggest that if this had happened in Ontario and if the government of Ontario, because of the action of the minister, had had to denude the city of Toronto of police in order to deal with a situation in northern Ontario a different view of this matter would be taken by some of the hon. members from
Supply-J ustice
Toronto. That sufficiently disposes of the minister's point that reinforcements were not needed.
The minister said that this was not the first request for reinforcements, but that it was a renewal of a request. I have never heard of this before. It is something entirely new, and I think perhaps that later on the minister might document that-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can do that right now. I thought the hon. gentleman would have read the material on this matter, but I find he has not. I placed the full facts on record in Hansard on March 16-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps, since I have the floor, the minister would be good enough to let me go on. There is no evidence on the record that I have been able to discover, but the minister, in his own time, can correct me if he wishes. There is no evidence that I can discover of any previous request having been made by the attorney general of Newfoundland for actual reinforcements in addition to any that might have been sent. If the minister can show me that I am wrong, I shall be glad to admit that I am mistaken after I have completed what I want to say now.
But the minister said this matter was all decided on March 11. When I asked him on March 12-but I will read the question:


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the language of section 13 which says that Canada shall, at the request of the attorney general of the province addressed to the commissioner increase the strength of the division as requested if, in the opinion of the attorney general of Canada, having regard to other responsibilities and duties of the force such increase is possible, would the minister say whether it is because the members of the force were not available that this request was not complied with.
To which the minister replied:
The matter is still under consideration, and 1 am not able to answer the hon. gentleman's question at this time.
Now the minister tells us it was decided the day before. But it seems that parliament was not entitled to be told. We were told that this matter was still under consideration. We were told nothing until Monday, although parliament sat the following day and questions were raised, and if this is ndt obvious evidence of dithering I do not understand the meaning of the word, and I ask if it was not in the minister's own phrase, fiddling about with the matter; mincing up to it and then backing away from it. That is what happened, and that is the impression the public had. The minister says the reason for this dithering was that he was trying to persuade the commissioner to withdraw his

Supply-Justice
resignation. The minister did not need to have had this resignation. If the minister had done his plain duty there would have been no resignation for the commissioner.
Now the minister said something about the decision of the government. There was no decision for the government to make in this matter. There was a decision for the Attorney General of Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which he made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But the minister said just now, if he will look at his Hansard-he referred to a decision of the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The record will show it. I hope he leaves it there so that it does show it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have made it perfectly clear that the decision was mine.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister will find, when he reads the record, that he frequently referred to a decision of the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have said, and I repeat, that the decision was mine and that I accept the responsibility for it and have never, in spite of the urgings of the hon. gentleman, tried to avoid that responsibility. With regard to this suggestion that there has never been a request for reinforcements earlier than the Badger incident, the hon. gentleman has shown that he is so blinded by the heat of his own passion as not to have appreciated what the record shows, because this has been on the record since March 16, that there were two occasions when I received a request for reinforcements. If the hon. gentleman can contain his passion and read the record accurately as it appears at page 1959, he will see that I said on March 16-it is too bad the hon. gentleman has not attempted to establish all the facts, because this apparently comes as news to him. I said the following:
The facts leading up to this resignation can be summarized as follows. On Sunday, March 8, I received a wire from the attorney general of Newfoundland asking for 50 additional Royal Canadian Mounted Police reinforcements and citing the terms of the contract.
As a result of these consultations, however, it was agreed that the situation might be kept under control by the sending of some 25 members of the Newfoundland constabulary from the city of St. John's into the strike area. This was done, and a further 20 Royal Canadian Mounted Police from other points in the divisional area were also brought into the strike area and, on this basis, it was reported that control of the situation might be maintained. However, arrangements were made by the commissioner, with my approval, to alert the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the other maritime provinces so that if the situation should require it and authority should be forthcoming, reinforcements could be sent in from the outside with a minimum of delay. This information was

accordingly conveyed by the commissioner to Superintendent Parsons and by him to the attorney general of Newfoundland.
Following the clash-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister does not need to read any more.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I continue:
-that took place on the highway outside the town of Badger on Tuesday evening, March 10, the situation apparently deteriorated further and Superintendent Parsons advised the commissioner that in view of the movement of 100 further strikers into the area he felt that the call for reinforcements should be renewed.
I received further communication accordingly requesting me to authorize the sending of 50 further R.C.M. Police. I put that on the record, Mr. Chairman, to make it clear that this was not the first occasion on which we had been asked to send reinforcements, and that our earlier consultations had also had the effect of making it clear to the province of Newfoundland that we were, to say the least, most reluctant to authorize the sending of reinforcements to this area, notwithstanding the fact we realized that the men there must be left free to carry out their responsibilities under the contract.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, this is the most extraordinary casuistry that I have ever listened to in my life. This was all the same request.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was so palpably the same request, and what is more the attorney general was obviously satisfied with the interim arrangements that were made. It seems to me that all it does is to reinforce and reinforce very strongly my argument in the matter. In the first place the government of Newfoundland, right up until the minister's statement on March 11 of this year, had every reason to believe that if an emergency arose these men would be available, and the fact that it went back to as early as the minister has pointed out in the record, and that the men were assembled. What were they assembled for? Were they assembled for the purpose of being sent once disorders were all over and there was complete peace there? Or were they assembled to be sent in case a greater emergency arose? It seems to me that if ever anyone made his case weaker the minister has done it by his own intervention.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, as my colleague from Bonavista-Twillingate has pointed out, in the course of discharging their duties in connection with the unfortunate labour troubles in Newfoundland last March, serious accusations were made against the R.C.M. Police which called into question their integrity. It is regrettable that to date no

positive action has been taken to clear their good name. On the contrary, the action of the minister himself in his failure to send reinforcements when requested, the words he used as he voiced the appraisal of the situation in Newfoundland, and the action of this government in refusing to set up a complete inquiry into this matter have tended rather to lend credence to these matters.
When the premier of Newfoundland asked for an inquiry he cited the protection of the good name of the R.C.M.P. as one of his reasons. For the benefit of hon. members I should like to place that telegram on record. It is dated March 13, 1959, and addressed to the Right Honourable John Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada. I quote:
In the interests of the peace, order and good government of Canada and to protect the good name of the R.C.M.P. the government of Newfoundland invites the government of Canada to set up at once a public inquiry under a superior court judge from outside Newfoundland to investigate the acts of lawlessness and violence which have taken place in central Newfoundland since the strike of the loggers began on December 31, for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and assessing the responsibility. The government of Newfoundland would extend every facility and assistance to such a commission in its inquiry.
J. R. Smallwood
Hon. members will recall that in this very house questions were asked and statements were made which implied that the R.C.M.P. in Newfoundland were being used for other than their normal duties. In addition, articles appeared in newspapers all across Canada which carried the same implications. On March 16 the minister himself made a long statement in the house in which he reported the regrettable resignation of Commissioner Nicholson and in the course of that statement he used the following words in appraising the situation. I am quoting now from page 1961 of Hansard. This is what the minister said:
As I appreciate the situation, therefore, the request made by the government of Newfoundland for Royal Canadian Mounted Police reinforcements takes on the character not of a request to assist in the normal function and duty of the province in maintaining law and order, but of a request for additional help made necessary in the course of the furtherance of a project to extinguish a union from the province.
The minister was not speaking off the cuff when he spoke those words; he was reading a carefully prepared statement and we must assume that he had given weight to every word that he was uttering. The question must arise in anyone's mind that if the request was not a request to assist in the normal function and duties of the province in maintaining law and order, what else could it be?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just what I said it was.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You said it was not.
66968-9-324
Supply-J ustice


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was just what I said it was in the words that have been read.


Chesley William Carter: All right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: March 11 or March 16.


Edmund Davie Fulton: March 16 was the only occasion on which we discussed the request from Newfoundland. If my friend will read the record he will see that.


Chesley William Carter: If the minister wants to stand by the explanation in the last part of the statement in which he said:
A request for additional help made necessary in the course of the furtherance of a project to extinguish a union from the province.
The minister is a lawyer, and when he spoke those words, surely he must have known what he was talking about. He must have seen the legislation, which was the only way in which the union to which he referred could be extinguished. If the minister did see the legislation he must know as a lawyer that its purpose was not to extinguish the union. In fact, it could not extinguish the union. All the legislation did was to free the company from being compelled to bargain with one union only. The effect of the previous certification was that the A.N.D. Company could bargain with the I.W.A. and nobody else, and all that the legislation did was to decertify the I.W.A. so that the company was free to bargain with any other union it wished. The legislation did not extinguish the union and the proof of that is that the I.W.A. is still in Newfoundland, still carrying on its functions, still maintaining its members and still giving out reports from time to time.
So the purpose could not have been to extinguish the union, and if it was not to extinguish the union what else could it be? Surely these words must raise a further question as to what the R.C.M.P. were doing in Newfoundland at that time. If the reinforcements were going to engage in something which was outside of the maintenance of law and order, surely the implication was that that was being done by the forces already on duty there. In another part of the statement on page 1960 of Hansard the minister went on to say:
Following the clash that took place on the highway outside the town of Badger on Tuesday evening. March 10, the situation apparently deteriorated further and Superintendent Parsons advised the commissioner that in view of the movement of 100 further strikers into the area, he felt that the call for reinforcements should be renewed.
The minister's refusal to send these reinforcements certainly must have indicated a lack of confidence in the judgment of the officer commanding the Newfoundland detachment who was on the spot and knew exactly what

Supply-Justice
the situation was. That too is a further reflection on the R.C.M.P. But to come back to the earlier statement of the minister that it was not a request to assist in the normal function and duty of the province in maintaining order, that in itself must mean that the minister considers that the necessity to maintain law and order should not be the controlling factor in his decision but the cause of the situation, the character of the request, and therefore he set himself up as the judge of the situation and came to the conclusion that whatever was happening in Newfoundland was the fault of the provincial government in trying to extinguish a union and, that being the case, it did not matter whether or not law and order were in need of being upheld. There was no obligation to uphold law and order or to protect life and property if the situation was caused by something which did not meet with the approval of the Minister of Justice.
On March 19 my colleague, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, asked the minister a question, and I quote now from page 2050 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, X should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I should like to ask the minister whether in view of his professed concern for the integrity of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police it is his intention to take action against those persons who have made defamatory and libellous statements about the conduct of the police in Newfoundland.
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I shall always of course be concerned about anyone who has made defamatory and libellous statements against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but the hon. gentleman has not identified the statements to which he refers and I doubt if it would be proper for him to do so on the orders of the day.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate then said:
I should be pleased to furnish the hon. gentleman with the press reports, Mr. Speaker.
Following that exchange in the house my colleague addressed a letter to the Minister of Justice dated March 24, 1959, as follows:
Dear Mr. Fulton:
You will recall that on Thursday last (March 19) I asked you in the House of Commons whether in view of your professed concern for the integrity of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police it was your intention to take action against those persons who had made defamatory and libellous statements about the conduct of the police in Newfoundland and that you replied "I shall always of course be concerned about anyone who has made defamatory and libellous statements against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but the hon. gentleman has not identified the statements to which he refers and I doubt if it would be proper for him to do so on the orders of the day."
I then indicated that I would furnish you with press reports containing the kind of allegations which I had in mind. Out of the many reports

which have appeared in various newspapers, I cite only two, both from the Toronto Star.
The Toronto Star of March 11, 1959, contained an item which reads as follows:
"Clash Provoked by Police I.W.A. Head Says Special to the Star
Grand Falls, Nfld., March 11-
H. Landon Ladd, president of the striking I.W.A. loggers, has called for a full inquiry by a federally appointed royal commission into yesterday's clash between striking loggers and the R.C.M.P. at Badger.
Calling the incident 'the worst demonstration of police brutality in Canadian history,' he said he based this opinion on interviews he had with dozens of people at the scene, including many who were impartial.
'They all tell exactly the same story,' he said. 'The police went at perfectly peaceful strikers with their clubs swinging.'
The incident was 'a disgraceful affair,' he said, but it clarified a statement made during the week end by attorney general Curtis.
At that time, when all was peaceful on the picket lines at Badger and elsewhere, from out of the blue came a statement from the attorney general passionately pleading with the pickets not to become involved in disorder and violence.
This came at a time when there was no disorder or violence.
This was followed yesterday by the arrival of a trainload of the Newfoundland constabulary, together with large reinforcements of R.C.M.P. These forces were imported into a peaceful central Newfoundland.
He said police in groups of four patrolled 'the peaceful town' of Badger throughout the day.
'They displayed their clubs in an obviously provocative manner in a demonstration of police power,' he went on.
What followed, later in the day, must be laid squarely with the R.C.M.P. and the Newfoundland constabulary, or those under whose orders they were acting.
Eyewitness accounts are in agreement. The men had been on the road. The police ordered them off and they moved to each side. The police then marched between them in two lines, turned and bore down on the men with their clubs swinging in a brutal fashion.
Mr. Ladd said the true story of the incident would shock the people of Newfoundland and the rest of Canada.
'Our union demands that not a stone be left unturned to establish the facts,' he went on.
Nothing less than a royal commission conducting a full inquiry and appointed by the federal government will assure the public of the facts to which they are entitled.
It is most regrettable that a number of persons suffered injuries, but the burden of this must rest with those who provoked the horrible display."
The Toronto Star of March 12, 1959, contained an item which reads as follows:
"Charges R.C.M.P. Cloak for Firm to Rush Scabs
Leaders of the two striking Newfoundland logger locals claimed today that R.C.M.P. constables were 'trying to incite a riot' when they charged a group of strikers in Badger Tuesday.
George Stoodley, Grand Falls, and Lawrence Ball, Deer Lake, Nfld., arrived in Toronto to start a countrywide tour to gain support for the striking I.W.A. international woodworkers of America.
Mr. Stoodley charged that the R.C.M.P. action was a cloak for Anglo-Newfoundland Development's failure to get loggers into bush camps."
It would appear to me that these statements are completely at variance with the detailed

account you gave of the same incident in the House of Commons on March 11, and with the Prime Minister's statement on March 16 that the government felt that the R.C.M.P. "has performed its duty with fairness and efficiency"; and that to ignore them would not be compatible with the "essential responsibility" to maintain the "full integrity" of the force.
Yours sincerely,
J. W. Fickersgill.
The minister's reply to this letter is dated March 25, 1959 and reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Pickersgill,
I acknowledge with thanks receipt of your letter of March 24 in which you reproduce two reports appearing in the Toronto Star concerning the conduct of the R.C.M. Police in Newfoundland, and refer to our exchange in the house in this connection on March 19.
I have already, as you yourself point out, dealt with the incident which the Star purports to describe. My report to the house on March 11 set out the true facts then in my possesion. In concluding that statement, I pointed out that; "... it is apparent that the . . . police . . . have done a thoroughly creditable job . . . under most trying and difficult circumstances."
You yourself also referred to the Prime Minister's statement on March 16 in which he said that the R.C.M. Police "has performed its duty with fairness and efficiency".
These official statements, outlining the facts and the government's position, one made at the same time as and the other within five days of, the newspaper reports in question had appeared, seem to me to be both a complete defence of the conduct of the police and a refutation of the allegations contained in the newspaper reports.
It is also my view that the allegations have been dealt with the proper forum, namely by government statement to parliament in the House of Commons, and I cannot therefore accept your suggestion that we are ignoring our responsibility to maintain the full integrity of the force.
Yours sincerely,
E. D. Fulton
The minister's reply can be summed up, Mr. Chairman, as saying the Prime Minister and 1 have both said these statements are not true and, therefore, they are not true. But where is the evidence to support this statement? In view of the fact that not only the premier of Newfoundland but also the Canadian Labour Congress called for an investigation, and in view of the minister's own words, which I repeated earlier, that the character of the duties of the reinforcements would be other than to maintain law and order-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said that was the character of the request.


Chesley William Carter: Well, if the character of the request was such that they were going to do something besides their normal duties of maintaining law and order, then of course the minister himself lends support to the charges made in these newspapers. In my
Supply-Justice
opinion, Mr. Chairman, some more positive action should be taken in this matter to establish and uphold the good name of the R.C.M. Police and I hope the minister, when he replies, will tell us what steps he proposes to take.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to endorse what appears to be a suggestion made by the last speaker when he requested that this matter of the conduct of the R.C.M.P. be investigated by a commission. I feel it is only fair that the minister who is responsible for this department should instigate this type of inquiry. There have been two versions of this story, and the two versions have not been anywhere near the same. I certainly endorse the wish of the previous speaker that this investigation take place.
I should like also to congratulate the minister upon the action taken by the government in regard to this particular situation. I should like to congratulate him upon the fact that the government was unwilling to again put the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the position in which they were in 1919 when they engaged in some of the most brutal and nefarious police work that has been done in Canada, and probably in North America. Then again, during the depression, on numerous occasions the Royal Canadian Mounted Police abused citizens in this country in the course of what was called the protection of property. I have pictures here that indicate that not all members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have become "Canada's finest", such as we see standing out in front of the House of Commons.
Over the years this police force has established a remarkable reputation for criminal investigation and for humanity in the work that they have done. I see again not that type of policeman, not the type of policeman that I know as a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but strikebreakers, people who are used by organizations for this so-called protection of property, the protection of a way of life. It appears to me that this was the situation in Newfoundland. I should like to read a small article that appeared in the Toronto Star, written by Ray Timson, staff correspondent, on March 11, 1959, and which is entitled "Eyewitness". There is a subheading "It Was Dark Hour for Canada's Finest", and then the article goes on:
Marching three abreast and carrying nightsticks, a column of 66 policemen waded into a throng of striking loggers last night, clubbed two of them unconscious, flattened dozens more while wives and children screamed for them to stop.
I watched the attack on mainly defenceless men for about an hour.

Supply-J ustice
Alfred Forward, 26, was clubbed over the head and beaten about the arms and chest and left unconscious between two parked cars. He was picked up by other loggers and carried to a house and revived.
At another point a logger standing in a backyard bordering the road watched the police escorting handcuffed, dazed loggers away. He shouted: "You sure have guts, haven't you?"
An officer pointed to him and yelled: "Get that man, get him now." The logger turned and fled and about 25 mounties and policemen cleared the yard fence like jackrabbits and chased him down toward a row of houses. He was beaten to the ground and arrested. One mountie bounded into Mrs. Frances Piercy and knocked her down.
"He never even looked back to see if I was all right", she said.
Her husband is Ernest Piercy, a picket and employee of the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company for 30 years.
The 66 police in the column came swinging down the road and marched past the massed strikers. It appeared the marchpast was to decide the strength of the assembly.
The incident occurred in the neighbourhood of 6 p.m.


Mr. Lambert:: Is the hon. member accepting these statements as facts?


William Arnold Peters: Yes, I am accepting these statements as facts because I have been in picket lines on many occasions. I know about the actions of the police in this type of affair. I have seen them in the past and I have received many of the results of some of these actions. I am quite willing to accept it. On the other hand, nobody has denied it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman on a question of privilege, but my whole statement in this house on March 11 was a denial of the Star's newspaper story and the general impression it sought to create.


William Arnold Peters: I do not accept that as evidence because of the fact that the minister is accepting what certain people say. I will go on to see who are these people he has that are representing him and what they may represent. I have here a particular picture with three mounted police or three Newfoundland police in it and one man lying on the ground and the others all standing around like a bunch of wolves in anticipation. It may not be brutality but it looks like an unfair fight. I do not think the poor guy on the ground is going to get the best of it. Another picture show's Canada's Royal Canadian Mounted Police marching along swinging clubs that appear to me to be about two and a half feet long. This does not appear to be the type of thing that produces peace on a picket line. It is brought to my attention that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have only riding crops. I have on the order paper a question that has been there for months, asking the minister for the specifications of these night sticks. I understand they are made out

of steel tubing. They weigh something like two and a half pounds, according to my information. If the minister says this is not right, let him produce one. I should like to see one and I should like him to answer the question that I have on the order paper if he thinks this is not correct. It appears to me that this is what these clubs are.
I think there are other things that we should consider in the province of Newfoundland. It is my information that when this province decided to join the rest of Canada they brought along part of their police force. I understand that this police force comprised what they called the Newfoundland rangers and that this group was headed up by a man who is now a member of the mounted police and who is an inspector of that police force in this particular area. It is also my information that this man was trained in India in the days of the colonial empire; that he was trained in the handling of men under colonial conditions in India; that he came to Newfoundland to head up this particular police force and ran it in a manner that we would not consider to be in keeping with the traditions of the R.C.M.P., from what I know it to be in Ontario. A number of these gentlemen who were brought into the R.C.M.P. I understand were given little or no training in the methods of operation of the R.C.M.P. Those are the people who are giving direction to some of the young people who are enlisting in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and are going in to serve and do duty in that province. Mr. Chairman, I shall be greatly surprised if some of these young R.C.M.P. have not resigned because of the brutality that has been practised in the strikes that have taken place in that province.
It has been said by the Minister of Justice that these police are by contract under the authority of the attorney general of Newfoundland. I ask you, Mr. Chairman whether it is fair and reasonable to put them under a man who the Parliamentary Guide points out is the Hon. Leslie Roy Curtis. This man is not a disinterested party in seeing that justice is obtained in this particular case. As everyone knows, there are two big companies in the labour dispute in Newfoundland. One of them is Bowaters; the other is Anglo-American Pulp and Paper Company.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on question of privilege. This matter has been raised previously in the house. Mr. Curtis, as attorney general formerly served on the board of Bowaters because the province had an interest in the company. He no longer serves on the board and has not been on the board since they paid off their obligations and he has no connection whatsoever

with the company. That has been stated before. I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman is saying what he is saying in good faith, but it does not happen to be true.


Mr. Regier:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that you will agree that the hon. member who has the floor is listing the record of the attorney general for the province of Newfoundland who is in charge of the law enforcement officers in Newfoundland, according to the words of our own minister in this house. The hon. member has the right to place on the record whatever he deems appropriate to place there, regardless of any added information which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate may have.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. member whether that is the current number?


William Arnold Peters: It is the one I obtained from the table. I did not know that the attorney general had resigned from this position. I did not know that the province of Newfoundland owned part of this particular company.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They had a loan.


William Arnold Peters: They may own both of them for all I know. But even if this is true, I still maintain that he has some ulterior interest or has had and that he cannot be an impartial judge of whether the interests of law enforcement, as far as the mounted police are concerned, is best served in this particular way.
The minister may know whether this Inspector Argent is fully trained and is considered to be competent by the standards or requirements that are necessary now under the training that is given to the R.C.M.P. I understand that his training certainly does not do anything for promoting harmony in the tense situation that prevailed in the province of Newfoundland. If he was trained as most of the R.C.M.P., that I know of have been trained, he does not show it. They are very diplomatic. They do not make the mistakes that this gentleman has been credited with making. I refer only to the situation that happened when a large number of people or strikers were jailed and when their wives were trying to take them food. This particular inspector would not allow them to take in the food. It was only at the insistence of the president of district 2 of the union that this food was allowed to come in and a riot was prevented. The women were going to riot. I do not think the R.C.M.P. in that province, including those people who were brought in from the rangers, would have been ready to put up a defence, if you call it that, against the women who were 66968-9-325
Supply-Justice
trying to supply their husbands with food which they understood was badly needed.
I therefore think that some of the responsibility rests on the minister to have an investigation into this situation. 1 am in complete agreement with the minister that he has the right to make these decisions without the commissioner resigning or the commissioner having the right to say, "Either you do it this way or I will resign". I think the minister took the only position that could be taken in that case. I think that was another matter altogether. But I think an obligation is owed to the name of the R.C.M.P. to clear up some of these statements; and the clearing up of them is not going to come from having the superintendent in that province tell the minister what the situation is or from having the inspector tell the superintendent so the superintendent can tell the minister what the situation is. An investigation is necessary.
Some correction must be made in the arrangements that we make with the province so that we do not get into this kind of a fuss where our national police force is being used to break strikes and to act as strikebreakers and to act as rowdies to promote violence itself. The fact that there has been very little violence since the police were not assured that they were going to get reinforcements in order to put on a show; and because they did not get those reinforcements there has been very little trouble because, I would suggest, the mounted police are not so cocky. There are not 66 of them marching along clubbing everything they see in the way, knocking down women and doing the other things that are alleged in this particular statement. The only way in which that I and, I think the rest of Canada, can be sure that this is not done is for an investigation to take place.
Mr. Chairman, I think if this were only an isolated case, if I could say it is confined only to the province of Newfoundland then I am not to pleased with the way justice operates in that particular province. I disagree with the former speaker who said that in his opinion the law is that the union was only decertified, not that it could not operate there any more; that the company involved would now be able to deal with a number of unions. The certification did not say that. The certification said that the number of people in the bargaining unit for that company had decided by vote that they were going to be given that jurisdiction, and they were given that jurisdiction. It does not mean that four or five unions-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member is now embarking

Supply-Justice
on something which has nothing whatever to do with the minister's estimates. I was very careful to refrain, as I indicated at the beginning, as other members have also refrained up until now, from dealing with anything but the police. I will not object to the hon. member continuing along this line; that is for the minister to decide. But if the committee wants a debate on the laws of Newfoundland there will be a debate on the laws of Newfoundland, and I hope those who wish to controvert other hon. gentlemen will be given the same privilege as hon. gentlemen are given who indulge in this totally irrelevant debate which has nothing whatever to do with the business of this house or the business of this parliament. It has solely to do with provincial jurisdiction in a province where the people have a vote and where they can settle these things.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I must tell the committee that I was not listening too carefully to the remarks of the hon. member, and I can therefore hardly base a judgment on the point of order. However, I must tell the hon. member that he must in the present debate, and all other debates for that matter, be strictly relevant to the item under discussion. At present we are discussing the administration of the police services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. All members who try to stray away from the limitations of the present debate will be out of order and will be so adjudged by the Chair.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the only reason I referred to this was because it was commented upon by the previous speaker. I thought what he said was wrong and I thought I should have the opportunity of saying why. If that is not your wish I will abide by your ruling.
This situation, as far as the police in the province of Newfoundland is concerned, might have been considered to be an isolated case. I have a high respect for the R.C.M.P. for the simple reason that I come from the province of Ontario where the R.C.M.P. only do jobs which are of a national nature. They do not get involved in traffic violations, strikes and things of that nature. However, I consider the conduct of the R.C.M.P. to be an insult to a national police body in this country in the action they took in Newfoundland. As I say, this might have been an isolated case except it happened in the province of Ontario very shortly afterwards.
I would like to read a small section of an article, because I am concerned with this brutality. I have always known that police who were poorly trained, poorly instructed and poorly paid probably tended to be the type of people who believed in pretty strong

arm methods and did not use their heads too much. But the R.C.M. Police have been well trained and have established a record which gives them a great deal of intelligence and initiative and authority, which they have abused. In the province of Ontario, as in Newfoundland, this reputation does not appear to be recognized any longer. Senator James Gladstone went to the Six Nations reserve shortly after trouble occurred on that reservation, and he wrote an article under his name which was reproduced in the Native Voice, the official organ of the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia, which was also published in the Toronto Star. He describes what he found when he visited the Six Nations reserve at Brantford and speaks of meeting some of the people. He says:
The group grew. Friends arrived-Harry Burning and his wife, and Lawrence Nanticoke, his forehead still taped, his fingers bruised from last Friday's early morning fracas with the R.C.M.P. Mrs. Hill's daughter, 18-year-old Alice, had a black eye from the same source. Her two sisters showed me deep scratches on their arms.
Then he goes on to tell of some of the problems involved in that discussion which I am sure are irrelevant here at this particular time. He goes on to say:
At that meeting the federal government had an opportunity to reconcile the two factions' differences. The R.C.M.P.'s visit would have been unnecessary.
How much provocation the Indians gave the R.C.M.P. I cannot say. But I saw the scars received from the police by four women and two men. They were beaten.
Lawrence Nanticoke told me that he was knocked to the floor nine times. After the raid, I was told, the houses of three Indians were invaded by R.C.M.P. officers who had no warrant for such an invasion.
It will take a long time-longer than it takes black eyes and wrenched fingers to mend-for the Indians' bitterness toward the R.C.M.P. to subside.
Their hostility toward the elected council and the R.C.M.P. is now focused on the federal government.
Then the rest of the article refers mainly to Indian affairs.
Mr. Chairman, I have also seen pictures published in the papers in connection with this fracas on the Six Nations Indian reserve. They showed police in uniform with a grim and vicious look on their faces, three or four of them holding one person and beating that person, according to the interpretation of the photograph. This appears to me to warrant an investigation. Something is wrong. It may have been wrong for a long time and the reputation of the R.C.M.P. may have carried them. If this type of brutality is going to be the rule of the day of the R.C.M.P., then we will be back to the days when they were beating people on the streets in the city of Winnipeg and the days when they beat hobos who were trying to find a place to lay down

their heads in the days of the depression. This is not what the Canadian mounted police deserve. I think the situation demands an investigation by the minister with regard to the brutality which appears to be taking place. Our national police force should take no part in beating women, beating men who are down, taking their places in picket lines, taking their places as strikebreakers, escorting people through picket lines. These are not the duties of this force, and I am sure it would be to the advantage of all Canadians that this matter be cleared up and the good name of the R.C.M.P. restored to them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, if I do not follow the last speaker in his allegations of brutality against the R.C.M.P., I hope this will not be interpreted as an indication that I agree in any way with what he has just said. The police, of course, cannot defend themselves in a discussion of this kind but no doubt the minister, who is their spokesman in this house will deal with the criticisms of brutality which have been made.
I wish to say a few words about the matter we were discussing previously, the contract with the attorney general of Newfoundland and the way in which that contract was carried out in connection with the events of last January, February and March. Perhaps I might not have found it necessary to intervene in this discussion had it not been for some of the statements which were made by the minister, with some of which I propose to deal. Before doing so I should like to put on record the views of the minister in regard to the role and the duty of the R.C.M.P. in carrying out their obligations under a contract with a province; the views of the minister at least before the Prime Minister decided not to send the reinforcements to Newfoundland which were requested in March.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I realize, of course, that I cannot dictate what the hon. gentleman is going to say, but I am sure he is too good a parliamentarian to continue to state that which is demonstrably in error. I have stated that the responsibility for the decision was mine and I have never sought to avoid it, and I can only leave it to the hon. gentleman to decide for himself if he is going to continue to say something which is not correct.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister says the responsibility is his, and that he took that decision on his own responsibility. I made the statement I did with regard to this matter because of the statement made to the House of Commons by the Prime Minister on March 16 as reported on page 1959 of Hansard when,
66968-9-325i
Supply-Justice
speaking before the Minister of Justice intervened in the debate and speaking first for the government, the right hon. gentleman said this:
Under the circumstances we have concluded that it would be provocative and likely to cause further outbreaks of violence to authorize the sending of further members of the R.C.M.P. at this time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does that mean the Prime Minister made the decision personally?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It means that the Prime Minister, speaking first, announced the decision in the terms that he used, from which we are entitled to assume that he took primary responsibility for the announcement of this decision and therefore primary responsibility as the leader of the government for making the decision. Otherwise, why would not the Minister of Justice have been permitted to get up in the house and announce, before the Prime Minister spoke, that he had taken a decision, and the terms in which he took it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Did you ever try to take the floor ahead of your prime minister?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Whenever I had any statutory obligation to make a decision I was always permitted by the prime minister of that day- in fact, I was instructed by the prime minister of that day-to get up and announce the decision in the House of Commons, and the prime minister did not intervene in a matter which was my responsibility.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But the Prime Minister had an announcement to make the same day in connection with the same dispute and I would be much surprised if the hon. gentleman, in that situation, would have insisted on taking the floor ahead of his prime minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The announcement which the Prime Minister made on March 16 before the Minister of Justice spoke was the announcement I have mentioned, that a decision had been taken not to send reinforcements.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It related also to a royal commission and several other matters.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That was mentioned subsequently as another subject. Anyway, the Prime Minister said: "We have concluded... not to send reinforcements."
When this matter came before the house the Minister of Justice emphasized-and the emphasis is worth repeating-that the R.C.M.P. under contracts of this kind were concerned with law enforcement only, and he assured the house that they would not in any event be used to break strikes-that was the expression which was used on one occasion. At page 909, he said:
The R.C.M.P., in matters of this kind, are acting entirely as a provincial force in accord with

Supply-Justice
the contract with the province to enforce specific provincial laws or to enforce law and order generally within the province. In their activities in this connection they come under the direction of and are responsible to the provincial attorney general from whom alone detailed reports on matters of this kind should be expected.
So I ask the minister before he came, after consultation with the government, to a decision in regard to the refusal to meet this request, and in the light of this statement which he made in the house on February 11, whether he consulted with the attorney general of Newfoundland? Did he take the initiative in getting into touch with the attorney general of Newfoundland and did he obtain from him the kind of detailed report with regard to this request for reinforcements which he said in his statement in the house on February 11 should come from, and could only come from, the attorney general of the province? That is one of the questions I have to ask, and perhaps the minister would reply to it later. Further, during those days when he was deciding what he should do, and when he was consulting with the government, what was the nature, if any, of his consultations with the attorney general of Newfoundland with regard to the request made by the commissioner of police for reinforcements, a request which was certainly supported and most strongly supported by the attorney general of Newfoundland. And then, on the same day, February 11, again on page 909 of Hansard, the minister was asked a question by a member of the C.C.F. party. This questions reads as follows:
Would the minister say whether the R.C.M.P. acting under this type of contract are permitted to do things which the R.C.M.P. would not normally be permitted to do?
To which the minister replied:
The answer, of course, is no; and there is no evidence to support the suggestion implicit in the question asked by the hon. member.
And yet in this statement in the House of Commons on March 16 which was issued as a press release on that day he said that the request made for police reinforcements-and I am quoting-takes on the character of "a request for additional help made necessary in the course of the furtherance of a project to extinguish a union from the province".
If this means anything at all it means that when the Attorney General of Canada is deciding whether he is to carry out the obligation of a contract made with the province for the supply of police to maintain law and order a criterion on which the decision is to be based is the policy of the provincial government. In other words, if the policy of the provincial government is such that it has labour or other implications which do not please the federal government or which do not please the Minister of Justice-if he is

worried in some way about the policy of the provincial government-that will decide, or that can decide, whether he will discharge the obligation inherent in the contract, however the contract may be interpreted. As my hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillingate pointed out, that surely, has a bearing on the responsibility of the provincial government for the maintenance of law and order. It is the responsibility of the provincial government to maintain law and order and to administer the law of the province. The contract has been made with the federal government for supplying police to help in the discharge of that obligation. The terms of that contract seem to be clear.
But the minister's position has been that if the request for additional help is made necessary because of certain policies adopted by the provincial government we then reserve the right not to send the reinforcements. As my hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillingate pointed out, however, there was no mention of a situation of that kind bearing on such a refusal when the minister spoke on March 11. Now he gives quite a contrary impression.
There is one other question I should like to raise. The minister said this afternoon- and I copied his words down; I hope they are accurate, I think they are; I am sure the paraphrase will be accurate-that he asked the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. in connection with this request for additional reinforcements whether these reinforcements were necessary for the safety or the security of the police. I believe he said the commissioner replied that that was not the consideration at issue; that he was asking for those reinforcements for the maintenance of law and order in the discharge of their duty in Newfoundland as a police force. This is, it seems to me, an astounding position for the minister to take; that if the commissioner-surely this is a humiliating position in which to put the commissioner -had said, "Yes, we need those reinforcements for the safety and security of the police"; if he had said that, would the minister have sent the reinforcements. That is the only possible inference one can draw from the minister's statement this afternoon. If the commissioner had said, "Yes, we need extra police for the security and safety of the R.C.M.P." he would have got them. What a position in which to put the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. In any event, as we know, the commissioner was unable to accept the attitude, the policy and the decision of the government and he found it necessary to resign, a resignation which is regretted, I am sure, by every member of this house.

I would like to put on the record a relevant paragraph or two from the commissioner's letter which appeared in the minister's speech and in the minister's press release. The commissioner himself, who was surely in a position to judge from the information he had received as to the necessity and the wisdom of the request which he was making for the reinforcements, said:
There is no doubt in my mind as to the need and I am certain that the number of men asked for can be provided without projudice to "other responsibilities and duties".
I realize that other issues are before you which arise from this strike but I feel most strongly that the matter of law enforcement should be isolated and dealt with on its own merits. This is the attitude the force has taken throughout. It has not concerned itself with the issues back of the strike but has merely tried to maintain law and order in the area.
This was the position taken by the commissioner which the minister was unable to accept and as a consequence the commissioner found it necessary to resign. In this statement to the house the minister also had this to say:
We must also consider the over-all responsibilities of the force, and our responsibility for the force, in a much wider context.
The primary duty of the force is to maintain law and order wherever the force operates throughout Canada. It is therefore an essential responsibility of the force to maintain its full integrity and its ability to discharge that duty on a national basis.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot for one minute believe that the commissioner would have made the request for reinforcements if he thought for one minute that that request, if made, would have prejudiced the full integrity of the force or its ability to discharge its duty on a national basis. In his statement the minister went on to say:
In my view I cannot overlook, in assessing the responsibilities of the force, the necessity to ensure that it is not cast in a role which in effect might disable it from discharging its responsibilities.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I will have to raise here the same point I raised earlier with respect to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, namely that the attorney general of Newfoundland, by referring to the Supreme Court of Canada the question of whose interpretation of these contracts is correct, has placed it beyond discussion in the House of Commons at the present time under the sub judice rule. In what the hon. member is now reading he is discussing the reasons I gave at the time for my decision. As I say, there are differences of opinion as to whether that decision is right or wrong. But if the Leader of the Opposition is to discuss my reasons I would have to defend them and we would get right into the question of who is right in his interpretation of the contract. I
Supply-Justice
suggest therefore that this part of the discussion by the Leader of the Opposition is out of order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I will not continue to discuss this matter, although it does not seem to me to have a bearing on the contract at all. I was staying away from the interpretation of the contract. I will just say this; I do not believe for one moment that the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. would have made a request for reinforcements in respect of this situation if it would have interfered in any way, shape or form with the responsibility of the R.C.M.P. in the discharge of its duties as a police force in Newfoundland or in any other part of Canada. Perhaps we can let the matter stand there.
Then the minister went on to say:
In the current situation, however, the activities of the Newfoundland government take on the character of an intervention in a dispute actually in progress, on the side of one of the parties and against the union which up to that time had been chosen as the bargaining agent by the workers and certified as such under the terms of the appropriate provincial legislation. This is an abnormal role for a government,-
Mr. Chairman, I am not entering into the question of whether this is an abnormal role for a government or not; I am not entering into the question of the dispute which brought about all this trouble. This is not what we are discussing; but the minister uses this question, he uses this mistaken- as he thinks it was-policy of the Newfoundland government, a political matter, as an argument for not meeting the request for police reinforcements. In other words, the minister as the Attorney General of Canada, is the judge of Newfoundland's policy in this matter in so far as it relates to the discharge of its obligations in a contract with the government of Newfoundland and, so far as I know, in coming to this conclusion which was based on an assessment of provincial policy. Also in coming to this conclusion, so far as I know, he had no discussion, no consultations of any kind with the Newfoundland provincial government or with the attorney general of Newfoundland. If I am wrong in this conclusion he will no doubt correct me. But I will ask him again; before he made up his mind, before he used this argument of provincial policy, did he discuss this policy with the attorney general of Newfoundland who had the primary responsibility for the administration of justice in Newfoundland? It seems to me that the conclusion to be drawn from the minister's attitude in this matter is that in regard to an obligation of this kind we, the federal government, the Attorney General of Canada, will discharge our obligations in the matter in the light of

Supply-Justice
our assessment of the policy followed by the provincial government. If that is not an interference with provincial rights I do not know what could be.
Perhaps in conclusion I can put on the record a statement made over the air on March 22 by Mr. Michael Barkway, a commentator. He had this to say about the decision of the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. and perhaps these words should be put on Hansard. I, of course, take full responsibility for them.
He said:
A rare gleam of glory Illuminated Canadian affairs at the beginning of this week. The commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police resigned because, as he said, he could "neither understand nor agree with" the government's refusal to send reinforcements to his hard-pressed men in Newfoundland, when the contract between Ottawa and the Newfoundland government seemed to him to leave no choice.
He went on to say:
It doesn't really matter whether you think commissioner Nicholson was right or wrong.
Incidentally, I happen to think he was right in this matter.
We are loaded to the gunwales with people who are so determined to be right that they will resort to almost any kind of expediency to avoid being proved wrong. We are desperately short of men who are ready to suffer for what they believe to be right and to take the risk of being proved wrong later.
I happen to think commissioner Nicholson was right-right not to be willing to let down his men on the spot: right to believe that the federal contract with Newfoundland meant what it said; right to suggest that you can't refuse reinforcement to one province without destroying confidence in all the other provinces; right, surely, when he wrote to Mr. Fulton that, whatever other strike issues the minister had to consider, "the matter of law enforcement must be dealt with on its own merits."
Law enforcement, as Mr. Nicholson said, is the only concern of the police. He has always insisted that it's not for the police to interpret the law or to choose between good and bad laws. He was as simple and modest about the functions of the police as he was about himself.
So I find it a little laughable when Justice minister Fulton undertakes to maintain the "full integrity" of the police by deciding on his own authority and with no stated evidence that reinforcements were not needed to maintain law and order but to act as strike-breakers.
It is our contention, Mr. Chairman, and I am making no reference to the contract at all, that the minister acted wrongly in regard to this matter; that the minister acted wrongly in not consulting with the government of Newfoundland, the attorney general of Newfoundland, before he made the decision; that the minister acted wrongly in not telling the house at once when the decision was made, and that if this kind of attitude is taken toward an arrangement between one province and the federal government it is

an unwarranted interference in provincial rights and it strikes right at the basis of our federal system.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, there have been some comments made by two or three speakers since I last had anything to say to which I think I should reply. What the Leader of the Opposition has just said reduces this situation in a sense, I think, to its proper perspective. We had here a difference of opinion between the commissioner in charge of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under a minister and the minister who had over-all responsibility for the force. That is true. It was an unfortunate situation. The commissioner felt himself unable to accept the view of the minister as to the proper interpretation of the contract and since he was absolutely unable to accept it he felt called upon to resign. That, incidentally, was a decision which, as I indicated to the commissioner at the time, I felt was wrong. I felt there was no necessity for him to resign but it was a decision which I respected and that is still the case.
The fact of the matter is that the responsibility for the decision is mine as Attorney General of Canada, and I have to accept that responsibility and I have accepted it. I recognize that there are differences of opinion with respect to whether or not I was right in the decision I have made but I was called upon to make a decision, I made it, and I have no apologies for having made it. I believe it was right. I thought it was right at the time and I still think it was right because, Mr. Chairman, what is my responsibility? I am the minister responsible for the force. I should like to refer the committee to a section of the statute under which the force operates. We are in the course of putting through a new bill now but the effect of the provision will be exactly the same. I refer the committee to section 4 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act which reads as follows:
Such member of the Queen's privy council for Canada as the governor in council from time to time directs, has the control and management of the force-
These words are pretty far-reaching.
-and of all matters connected therewith.
As the minister designated by the Queen's privy council for Canada I cannot escape responsibility for the control and management of the force and, as I stated to the house on March 16 in giving my reasons for my decision, it was my view, which I still hold, that in deciding upon whether or not I should follow any course with respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police I had to keep in mind the question of whether or

not this would affect the full integrity and ability of the force to function as a law enforcement body everywhere it may be called upon to operate in Canada.
Having taken into consideration the factors then present in the unfortunate circumstances in which the call for reinforcements was made, I came to the conclusion that to accept that call for reinforcements would prejudice the integrity of and regard for the police as a law enforcement body and would prejudice their ability to discharge their obligations everywhere in Canada, and that it would therefore not be proper for me to accept the call and follow the course of sending reinforcements. I took that decision in view of my concept of my over-all responsibility for the force. As I have said, there may be differences of opinion about this matter but I have no apologies to make for it to Michael Barkway, the Leader of the Opposition or anybody else. Indeed, I think if I had sought to avoid that responsibility on the grounds that I might be prejudiced or that there might be an embarrassing discussion in the house or, indeed, even on the ground that the commissioner might resign, then I should have been worthy of any contempt that anyone might care to put upon me.
So, as I have said, I think that the Leader of the Opposition in what he said has reduced the matter to its real perspective. Here was a case where the commissioner had one view about what should be done and the minister in charge had another. The Leader of the Opposition referred to my words in the statement on March 16 where I said:
It is therefore an essential responsibility of the force to retain its full integrity and its ability to discharge that duty on a national basis.
That is the duty of law enforcement. The Leader of the Opposition said that he was sure that the commissioner would not have made the request to send reinforcements if he had felt that it would interfere with the full integrity of the force. Of course he would not. I am as certain as the Leader of the Opposition is that he would not have made that request if he had thought it would interfere with the full ability of the force to discharge its responsibilities everywhere. I formed the judgment that I did and that was a judgment I had to form. I cannot do anything but repeat that that was my judgment, that was my decision, and under the circumstances I felt that I was therefore bound to refuse the request.
As to the reasons why I came to that conclusion, they have already been placed on Hansard as found on page 1961. I have already drawn a distinction which to me is obvious and I am sorry if Mr. Barkway cannot see it. To me it is an obvious distinction
Supply-Justice
between police who are in a province in a certain situation and under contract, as they were in Newfoundland-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think I will have to raise a point of order at this time. Both my leader and I have desisted at once when the minister suggested that we were entrenching upon what is before the courts. It was precisely on this point that the minister first raised a point of order with me, and I think he is now doing the same thing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What I was going to read has already been read into the record by my hon. friend or the Leader of the Opposition, but I want to read it into the record in the context of what I have to say. Perhaps my hon. friend would listen to the passages and if he protests again I will be glad to consider the objection. What I was saying was that I have already drawn a distinction between the obligation of the men who are there in Newfoundland to carry out the orders of the attorney general on the one hand and the situation when a province under these circumstances requests reinforcements. I said on March 16, and part of this has been put on Hansard before, most recently by the Leader of the Opposition:
In the current situation the activities of the government of Newfoundland appear to have gone beyond the usual role of a government. That role in this context is first to provide the machinery for promotion of industrial peace and development and for the settlement of industrial disputes, and second to preserve and enforce law and order in the course of any dispute that may arise.
In the current situation, however, the activities of the Newfoundland government take on the character of an intervention in a dispute actually in progress, on the side of one of the parties and against the union which up to that time had been chosen as the bargaining agent by the workers and certified as such under the terms of the appropriate provincial legislation.
This is an abnormal role for a government, and certainly has the elements of an attempt to extinguish from the province a trade union national in character and hitherto chosen by the workers in that industry, in that province, as their bargaining agent.
As I appreciate the situation, therefore, the request made by the government of Newfoundland for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police reinforcements takes on the character-
The request takes on the character, not the conduct of the men already there in the province, but the request for reinforcements takes on the character-
-not of a request to assist in the normal function and duty of the province in maintaining law and order, but of a request for additional help made necessary in the course of the furtherance of a project to extinguish a union from the province.

Supply-Justice
For these reasons, as I said, because in my view it is my duty to look at the overall responsibility of the force and for maintaining its full integrity and its ability to discharge its duties on a national basis, which depends in a large part upon its acceptability for that role, I felt that to accept the request would prejudice that national role and it would not be proper for me, as minister, to do so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That happens to be the precise passage, at least part of it, to which the minister took exception to me reading, but under the circumstances perhaps the minister would not mind me asking him this one simple question about it. Does the minister feel that if a situation arose in any province where, in his opinion, the reputation of the force may be affected, and if there is an arrangement with that province, he has an obligation to leave there the men that are there but not to send additional men in order to enable them to carry out their police functions efficiently; is that what he is saying?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I regret to say that I am unable to answer' hypothetical questions. This is a hypothetical question. The passage my hon. friend started to read is not the one I have read. I have refrained from reading it on purpose. It is the passage in which I went further into the details as to how this clause should be interpreted, and I am not in a position to discuss that because the government of Newfoundland has placed the matter before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think I should say one or two words with regard to the allegations made by the hon. member-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before the minister gets on to that, would he deal with the two questions which I asked him and which I do not think are hypothetical. He has just said the basis of his decision was the fact the government of Newfoundland had gone beyond the usual role of government. I asked him if that was his view of the role of the government of Newfoundland in this matter, had he taken up this question with the government of Newfoundland through the attorney general and discussed it with him before he discussed it with his colleagues or, indeed, after he discussed it with his colleagues and before he made his decision? This was one of the questions: Had there been consultation with the attorney general of Newfoundland over the role of the government of Newfoundland before this decision was made?
The other question was with regard to the implication that if the commissioner of

the R.C.M.P. had said the reinforcements were required for the safety of the police, the reinforcements would have been sent. The commissioner said he could not make any such statement as that, and he was not going to accept that they were required for the safety of the police. He stated that this consideration did not enter into it and, therefore, because that consideration did not enter into it the reinforcements were never sent. Would the minister deal with those two matters?


Edmund Davie Fulton: With regard to the first matter, there was some consultation with the attorney general of Newfoundland on an earlier occasion concerning the role that the government was adopting in the labour dispute.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say when that consultation was?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I cannot tell my hon. friend. It was a telephone conversation which would probably be within a week of the Badger incident. I think it was made pretty clear on both sides, although it was a personal conversation and I do not want to go into details, that there were the gravest reservations as to the course being followed by the other. I do not say it was related specifically to police reinforcements, but it was related to the situation generally.
Then the other question was with relation to whether the reinforcements were necessary to protect the lives and safety of the men already there. I did not say, and I do not believe I left the impression but if I did leave the impression I want to clear it up right away, that this matter was discussed as being the sole determining factor. But I, in assessing the request for reinforcements, wanted to be certain as to what the position was with respect to every factor that might be relevant in making a decision. It was only in that sense that the question was asked. I have only mentioned the question because it was referred to specifically in editorials read by my hon. friend from Bonavista-Twil-lingate. I have hitherto ignored the inference raised that, by reason of refusing the reinforcements, I was placing the lives and safety of the police already there in jeopardy. It was only for the purpose of clearing up any doubts on that score that I made reference to the discussion with the commissioner.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister would permit me I should like to ask him a question to clear up this business about consultation with the attorney general of Newfoundland. He told me on March 12 he had had a conversation with the attorney general of Newfoundland the evening before. I should like to ask

the minister if that conversation-I refer to Hansard of March 12, page 1864, which reads as follows:
Could I ask the minister if he has received any communication from the attorney general of the province?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have, and I was in communication with him last night.
This was the crucial date, March 11, and could the minister tell us whether he initiated the conversation with the attorney general of Newfoundland, whether he gave him any intimation before he reached his decision not to permit the reinforcements to go or whether the conversation was initiated by the attorney general of Newfoundland after the decision?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes; there were two conversations. The one I referred to a moment ago was an earlier conversation not related specifically to sending R.C.M.P. reinforcements because my recollection is that the request had not yet been made at the time of that conversation. The second conversation referred to in the answer given on March 12, and just read by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, was a conversation initiated by the attorney general of Newfoundland with regard to the request for reinforcements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, the minister thinks there had been no previous discussion about sending reinforcements; that is what the minister is stating?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, that is not quite what I said. It is not quite accurate. I referred also to my statement in which a telegram of March 8 asking for reinforcements was received, and resolved at that time by making other arrangements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am talking about conversations; my understanding is there was no conversation about the police until the conversation to which the minister referred on March 12?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No conversation about the police; I think that would be correct. They may have been referred to in passing in the conversation a week earlier, but that conversation certainly did not deal specifically with the request for reinforcements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, this decision of this government to deprive the government of a province, the duly constituted and democratically elected government of a province with what they considered necessary for the maintenance of law and order, that decision was taken without any intimation being given by the minister, without any consultation with the government; it was a completely unilateral decision?
Supply-J ustice


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I pointed out and as the answers make clear on March 11, reinforcements would not be dispatched at that time. It was after that news became available that the attorney general of Newfoundland called me and told me he could not understand why they could not be sent at once. I explained to him the considerations we had in mind, briefly, and the matter was left there. The decision not to send them was announced on March 16 in the course of discussion in the house.
I was going to deal for a moment with the statement made by the hon. member for Timiskaming with regard to the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Newfoundland and the suggestion that there should be some kind of commission of inquiry to look into this matter. I have indicated to those who have inquired of me about this matter previously that if at any time, as a result of my inquiries and studies of the matter, I came to the conclusion that there was something requiring an outside investigation, I would immediately order one. But so far I have not yet, as a result of those studies, had any occasion to think that there is any substance in fact to the sort of newspaper report that appeared in the press and from which my hon. friend read. That being my position, I do not think it would be in the least appropriate for me-in fact, I think it would be absolutely inappropriate-to order a commission or any other form of formal inquiry into the allegations which appear to be so baseless as those to which my hon. friend has referred.
I indicated in the house on March 11 and I believe in one or two other statements that I had made full inquiries as to the part of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the occasion of every incident that was referred to and that, as I said in that full statement on March 11, where tempers are running high and the feeling is tense, as it always unfortunately is in a situation of that kind where large scale industrial disputes are involved, then the very nature of the responsibility of the police, which is to enforce those provisions of the Criminal Code which say that picketing shall be peaceful and that roads shall not be obstructed, this responsibility unfortunately is bound to bring the police on occasion into conflict with those engaged in the industrial dispute whose tempers, as I say, are running high. But that is a responsibility which the police cannot and should not seek to evade.
Unfortunately on occasion, because tempers are running high, violence breaks out. If violence is used, then force must be used to resist violence. Then what do we find? We

Supply-J ustice
find that the police are accused of brutality. This to my mind is a complete distortion of what the situation is.
Although on reflection I think my hon. friend will realize that he made some fairly extreme statements, I am quite sure that he would not on reflection for a moment really suggest that merely because the feelings are intense the police should leave the scene. That would be a complete denial of their duty. If they are to carry out their duty, then unfortunately it does on occasion bring them in conflict with those who are carried away by the violence of their own feelings, understandable though it may be. In this case I can understand the reason for the intense feeling. But that does not alter the fact that the police still must discharge their duty, unpleasant and uncomfortable though it may be.
With respect to the Brantford situation, here again we have somewhat the same picture. There was extremely bad or bitter feelings between the hereditary Indians or those Indians who believe in the hereditary system and those who believe in the system of the elected council, and their supporters. In the course of this dispute the supporters of the hereditary chiefs took over the council house which contained a safe, valuable documents and other articles which were regarded as being of particular and peculiar value to the tribe concerned and to the organization concerned. This was done I believe three or four days before formal steps were taken to clear the building. In other words, you had a forcible taking of possession of property contrary to the law and you had demands made upon the elected chiefs to go in and open the safe and give up custody of these documents and threats that if these demands were not met, the safe would be carried off bodily, or in other words a theft would be committed. Thus you had, as I say, a violation of the law represented by the forcible taking of possession. But because we were dealing with Indians, because feelings were so intense, and it was desired not to aggravate them, with my concurrence the police were instructed not to take immediate action which ordinarily they should have taken, by force if necessary, to restore the property to its rightful owners. In other words, the police adapted their conduct and their operations to accommodate the view that by a show of restraint and patience it might be possible to bring the two sides together. This was continued for some days until, as I am informed, the indications became quite clear that further attempts would be made to take the law into their own hands by some of these people to an extent which simply could not be ignored. So it was decided that the necessary

steps had to be taken-after some days again-to bring to an end this defiance of the law represented by the forcible taking and retaining of possession of the council house; and the police were instructed to go in.
There were some 140 indians physically present in the building determined to resist attempts of the police to have them vacate it. The police did not go in there determined to push them out forcibly or to push them around. They went in there issuing a lawful order to these people to vacate the building. They made it clear that if the building was not vacated, then, if necessary, such force as was necessary to be used would have to be used. Their order was defied. They did not make a sudden rush and go in with clubs swinging, knocking people on the head. My information is that they spent some time in asking them to leave peaceably. When they did not leave peaceably, then some of them at any rate joined arms and proceeded to move down the hall shouldering the Indians ahead of them. It is perfectly true-and it cannot be denied-that violence broke out. In other words, the police in the discharge of their duty were resisted by force and it is a fact that when lawful authority is resisted by force, then lawful authority is obliged to use such force as may be necessary to overcome that force.
But surely we should be realistic human beings and not lose our sense of proportion and suggest that because the police are resisted in the performance of their duty they have to go away and leave the lawbreakers in possession of the premises. Unfortunately a certain amount of force was necessary in order to carry out this eviction. But I have absolutely no evidence-in fact, all the evidence I have is to the contrary-that unnecessary force was used. Of course the police had expressions of discomfort on their faces. Does my hon. friend really imagine that they like having to eject people by force, particularly when some of those people happen to be women? Does my hon. friend not also realize that there are some people who recognize the fact that you can make more fuss out of it if you have a woman present than if you have not a woman present? I just ask that we keep a sense of proportion and recognize the fact that the job of law enforcement is not always a pleasant and glamorous one, that occasionally it has its unglamorous and unpleasant side but that really society is much better protected because there are honest and conscientious policemen who are prepared to discharge these unpleasant and unglamorous tasks as well

as to take whatever credit and whatever pleasure they may occasionally get out of the glamour of it.
That is the tradition and the record of this force. That is why people respect it so highly, because it does not shirk unpleasant duties. The people of Canada know that they can rely on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to carry out the unpleasant with the pleasant, not expecting any reward, not expecting any flattery or congratulations. However, I think they are entitled to ask that the people of Canada, particularly the members of this house, maintain a sense of proportion as to how a constable should go about discharging his duties.


William Arnold Peters: The minister spoke about a sense of proportion. At six o'clock in the evening, the supper hour, 66 policemen marched into a number of strikers standing along the road where no workers would be going to work, where no strike breakers would be trying to pass through the picket line, either going or coming. It was at the supper hour, at least an hour after the shift would be over. Would he consider it to be all right for 66 policemen to march through that group of men or would he consider it to be provocation?
I would suggest to the minister it hinges pretty well on whether he is being honest with the members from Newfoundland who have a different opinion from mine. If he says he does not think it is provocation, then what he should have sent to Newfoundland is 3,000 or 4,000 more policemen to intimidate the strikers. If he does, 66 are too many to be enforcing law when there is no question of any violence, except perhaps violence against themselves. You cannot have it both ways. Either you believe that 66 policemen would be too many and would be provoking and looking for trouble rather than preventing it, or if it is not, maybe we should have a lot more policemen down there to intimidate the I.W.A. off the island.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I assume my hon. friend is speaking of the Badger incident; I think he is from what he said. If he is, the information he has and my information are poles apart, because my information, which has been checked, is that it was not a case of 66 policemen moving in in the absence of provocation to a peaceful group who were isolated from any scenes of disorder. What actually took place was that on two previous occasions shortly before in that very area there had been blocking of roads and damage to property, to a vehicle which attempted to pass that way. Then tempers had been consistently mounting, and as a climax a large group of persons gathered
Supply-Justice
at a road intersection, a Y, a busy road and the very road upon which it was expected there would be further movements of vehicles that night. So that the background sketched by my hon. friend is very far removed from the factual background. The police went in as a body, it is true, as sensible policemen would. Their first attempt, I am informed, and I accept it absolutely because this is the proper method to pursue, was to persuade the men to disperse peacefully. Unfortunately the men refused to accept that request, and later to comply with that order, and violence broke out. But the background the hon. gentleman has sketched is, I fear, very inaccurate.


Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, most of the trouble under discussion which occurred last winter was in my district, and I would like to participate briefly in this debate regarding the refusal of R.C.M.P. reinforcements. I think first I should say that I have no intention whatsoever of discussing the contractual relationship of the R.C.M.P. and the government of Newfoundland. That matter is in the courts, and apart from that it has no bearing on the aspect of the matter which I wish to discuss.
There has been so much distortion, distortion such as evidenced in the newspaper article read by the hon. member for Timis-kaming, and so much speculation and prejudicial statements made regarding what happened in Newfoundland that I think something in the nature of a narrative of the circumstances surrounding the request for R.C.M.P. support and the refusal of it should be given. Also I think I should say that regardless of what criticisms may have been made, everything which I know and have heard points to the fact that the R.C.M.P. was a completely impartial and courageous body. Certainly it was known that there was serious trouble in Newfoundland, that there was rioting, that men partly clothed had been thrown out of woods camp during freezing weather. Many people felt they were being intimidated; there was a general feeling of uneasiness with the threat of rioting continuously in the air. Also there were many neutral people who felt that their very lives and properties were endangered even as their peace was. Therefore I think perhaps I can do no better than to let these people speak for themselves.
Recently in this house there were tabled communications to the Prime Minister from those who opposed the decision of the government in not sending reinforcements to the R.C.M.P. in Newfoundland, and I would like to read two of the letters and two of the telegrams, because I think they tell the

Supply-J ustice
story completely from the standpoint of those who were actually in the area and affected by the circumstances at the time. The first letter is from Mr. George Hicks of Grand Falls, who is a very fine man, a very highly respected citizen, and I might add a staunch Conservative. He writes the Prime Minister as follows:
Dear Prime Minister,
I have just returned from the funeral of the late Constable Moss, victim of an assault by one of a crowd unlawfully assembled at Badger on Tuesday night. At the time he was engaged with many other R.C.M.P. and police in attempting to disperse this mob.
The funeral was attended by about two hundred and fifty ex-service men, as this young man was a veteran of the Korean war and had been in the police force only six months. It is indeed very sad, and the whole country is deeply shocked. He leaves his mother and stepfather to mourn. His mother has been quite ill for some time, and what effect this will have on her can only be imagined.
You will recall that it was my privilege and honour to introduce you to the people of Grand Falls less than a year ago. We were all so delighted to have you here, and still more so when, shortly after, you became the Prime Minister of all Canada. There was serenity here then. Today, however, we have been caught up in what has been described a civil war, brother against brother, father against son.
All this strife in a community that has known only peace and happiness for more than fifty years is indeed a shock. I dare to say that no one feels this more keenly than I do myself, for I came here as a young school teacher in 1906, taught seven years, spent five of the best years of my life overseas in the first war, came back and worked for the A.N.D. Company for nearly forty years. I have lived in retirement since 1953. I saw these mills built, the town expand, the temples of religion rear their noble fronts and the halls of learning spring up. I have seen this town grow from the wilderness to its present beauty and strength. But, above all, I have seen the close relationship between management and labour.
To see this undermined is sad enough, but to see the happenings distorted in the Canadian newspapers is equally as bad. One would think that the first duty of a newspaper is to ascertain the facts. This seems to have been overlooked.
I would not attempt to say how the I.W.A. came into Newfoundland, but apparently they did get a foothold here, and through various processes reached a point where they were able to talk business with the company. This was previously done by the Newfoundland Lumbermen's Association through the woods labour board.
Negotiations began between the company and the I.W.A., but after some months came to an impasse. Then a strike was called. Since then, various incidents such as destruction of property and assaults on the men working in the camps led up to the deplorable incident already referred to.
We all feel here that the stand taken by the government, and supported by the opposition, was courageous and necessary. It was considered an emergency; they closed their ranks and took action, as any country would do in a similar situation where the public interest was in peril.
There may be some doubt in the minds of mainland Canadians that there is a rift in public opinion here over this matter, but I should like to assure you from every indication to hand that
[Mr. Granger.!
this is not the case. Politics has not entered into the question. It is, as stated, an emergency; the public safety has been threatened and the people throughout the province seem to be as one in support of the action taken by the government and the opposition after their appraisal of the situation.
As indicated-


Charles Edward Rea: I am wondering how the hon. member is going to make this relevant to this particular item. I was hoping he would do so, and that is why I gave him a little leeway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may say a word about that, this is a return made by the Prime Minister to a motion asking for letters that protested the action of the government with respect to the R.C.M.P., and if the Prime Minister considered that this was a relevant item in making that return it is surely relevant to a discussion of the R.C.M.P.


Charles Edward Rea: We are discussing the administration of the R.C.M.P. and, as I say, I should like to know how this is related to it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was also asked to make a similar return. A number of letters discussing the situation generally were of considerable length, and contained, perhaps only one paragraph about the failure to send R.C.M.P. reinforcements, but I felt bound to produce such letters. I would certainly take the position that the discussion of a letter of this sort would not be relevant to a debate on this administrative item.


Charles Edward Rea: Perhaps the hon. member will pick out the parts of the letter which are related to this item.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: I should be happy to do that, but in fairness to the man who wrote this letter I did not want to read anything out of context. He goes on:
As indicated in my telegram to you, the exservice men in this area have unanimously volunteered their services to protect life and limb, should that be necessary, but this does not in any way excuse the federal government from withholding adequate police protection, as indicated by their reluctance to send forward the detachment requested by the provincial government. We all feel this to be quite wrong, and would seem to indicate that pressure has been brought to bear by sources unfriendly to this country.
And here I conclude my quotation from Mr. Hicks:
The R.C.M.P. and local police did a fine job here, and they deserve great credit for their forbearance in a most difficult situation.
That letter is signed "Yours faithfully, George Hicks". Mr. Chairman, I shall endeavour to follow your ruling in reading from this letter by Mrs. Yolande Johnston. She writes:

Newfoundland is a peaceful country and the people of Newfoundland are well known for their friendliness and exceptional hospitality . . . The situation in Grand Falls as it has been and still exists is much too complicated for a mere housewife to try to explain, but that statements made by the R.C.M.P. should ever be doubted and questioned is almost unbelievable. Nevertheless when a request was made for additional help it was refused. Never have the government of Newfoundland with its people and churches stood together as they do now, yet people from the outside know nothing of the true facts because instead of accepting the views of decent people they choose to believe a bunch of liars.
And now I should like to read a telegram sent to the Prime Minister by the Rev. Allan Old, minister of St. Andrews Presbyterian church at St. John's:
Highly commend police department here. Consider reinforcements urgently necessary to protect neutral life and property in central Newfoundland.
And, finally, the following from the president of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland, Pastor Eugene Vaters:
I must register my sense of shock and horror and depressed feelings for the future over the hesitancy and the final refusal of the federal government to send to Newfoundland the police force as thought necessary by the Newfoundland house of assembly and requested by the attorney general. This is most disturbing as it shows to us that the upholding of law and order and good government in Newfoundland is contingent upon the vagaries of interested pressure groups and party politics converging at Ottawa. To many of us the tradition for prompt and efficient upholding of law and order and good government we have ever associated with Canada lies before us, be-smirked. This is the more to be lamented in the face of forces known and declared to be evil and noxious highly organized and spreading which threaten by means legal and illegal to engulf Canada from end to end and the rest of what is left of freedom integrity and good will in the world, as well.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think I need read more. These statements are representative of the feelings of the people of Newfoundland. I should say they might be considered mild compared with the strong and definite feelings of most Newfoundlanders.
The R.C.M.P. remains today a proud and courageous body with an enviable reputation for loyalty and devotion to duty. I am sorry that the same cannot be said of the government which failed to come to their aid, and to ours, in the hour of need.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, I shall confine
myself within the limits of this debate and not enter into wide fields of discussion which are more capably handled by the Minister of Justice. But I can speak with some authority, I think, on the feelings of the rank and file of the R.C.M.P. because I had the extreme honour of serving in that body off and on for some 23 years. It is a great honour to
Supply-J ustice
stand here and be able to speak on their behalf because as hon. members know they must at all times be divorced from politics.
Speaking on behalf of the rank and file of the mounted police, I believe there is a problem here which no hon. member during this debate, no writer in the press and apparently nobody in Canada has taken into account, and that is: what are the duties of an ordinary member of the R.C.M.P.? Apparently when civil war is threatened we are expected to put it down. We are expected to put it down not by force but by prestige. I think this is a heavy onus, and I do not see how we can blame this government or, perhaps, any government for the vague position in which the ordinary uniformed member finds himself. Is he expected to maintain law and order under all circumstances? I just want to give the committee three simple situations and ask them, and I hope the citizens of our great country, to decide fairly and squarely what attitude they take to them.
If a uniformed member finds a sailor coming ashore drunk and attacking a woman on the street, his duty is plain-he arrests that person and brings him before the proper civil authority. However, if a mounted policeman travelling on his motorcycle along the rocky coast of, say, Cape Breton sees a submarine and foreign troops being disgorged on the shore, he does not rush with bare bosom upon the spear; he goes to the military, using his commonsense as a good member of the R.C.M.P. should. In between those two examples there is the situation which has been described in excerpts from papers and letters read to this committee, a situation of threatened civil war. If the horrors outlined in Newfoundland were such that, in fact, 1,500 irate strikers armed with clubs were ready to batter the mounted police into the ground, that is not a job for mounted policemen, singly or in large groups, and I, for one, as a member who stood and did my duty for 23 years, never envisaged myself as voluntarily undertaking such an obligation. It is true that in an emergency we do this sort of thing but it is not part of our contract with the government. It is not the sort of thing which we think our officers can order us to do. We do it as a duty to our country in an emergency, and where those emergencies can be handled by constituted authority they should be so handled.
I do not want to go any further into the interpretation of contracts. I want hon. members to think this thing over and to decide whether or not there have been emotions dragged into this thing which have no real weight or significance. I think this argument about the role of the mounted police has been used in a political sense perhaps on

Supply-Justice
both sides. But this should be clarified. When you talk about broken contracts between a province and a government, that is one thing. But how about a contract that is made with an individual. How far does my duty go? Have I the right to refuse. When you straighten out the contract between the province and the dominion, perhaps there should be something written into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act so that a man knows whether he is a policeman or a soldier.
I joined the mounted police in June, 1935, and before I was even in uniform I was armed, stood by and was called out to wield a club against people who were ready to march on Ottawa to present their views. I am not going into that. I was not trained; I was not a soldier. I signed a contract to serve king and country as a policeman. To people who drag in emotions and say that it is my duty at all times to maintain law and order I say that is not so. You are asking me to do something which you yourselves are not called on to do and I am entitled as an ordinary uniformed member of the force to know where my duties start and where they stop.


Mr. Hardie:: You are also entitled to get out of the force if you do not like it.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am speaking because I have served in the force. I know what the onus is when you are called upon to use violence against your fellow citizens. In view of the difference of opinion expressed not only in the press and in the country but in this very chamber, I do not think that the duties of a policeman are very clearly understood. I merely suggest to you that we consider this. Apparently this is of great national importance, and we should settle the matter whether or not the members of the R.C.M.P. cannot have their formal duties outlined and when it comes to going beyond the call of duty I suggest that might be left to their conscience.


Frank Howard: I should like to make a few remarks with respect to the discussions that have gone on this afternoon, and particularly with regard to parts of it. I listened with a great deal of interest to the almost impassioned remarks of the Minister of Justice with respect to the maintenance of law and order and the general respect that we must have for the law enforcement officers and for law itself. There is no doubt that that is quite true. We all agree, I am sure, that the law enforcement officers, whether they be R.C.M. Police or whether they be attached to some other part of our police forces such as municipal or provincial

forces, are a necessity and do carry out extremely useful functions, generally speaking, in enforcing law and order. But some sort of general impassioned appeal such as we heard a moment ago should not be allowed to overcloud what I think are occasional errors and mistakes in so far as the enforcement of law and order is concerned and in so far as the activities of the R.C.M. Police are concerned, because this is the force we are discussing at the present time.
Unfortunately I had to attend a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Indian affairs this afternoon and did not have the opportunity to hear my friend from Timiskaming make reference to an article and a comment of Senator Gladstone with respect to the Six Nations confederacy and the problem that arose down there. I understand that my friend and colleague from Timiskaming read sections of the comments of Senator Gladstone in so far as the activities of the R.C.M. Police are concerned on that particular reserve. This is one instance where I feel a grave error was made by the R.C.M. Police in their activities. The minister did not deal in detail with the comments made by the senator, but I hope he was not trying to disagree with what Senator Gladstone had to say with respect to the activities of the R.C.M. Police. Therefore I would like the minister to go further into that and say whether he would agree or disagree with the comments of the senator with respect to the activities of the R.C.M. Police on the Six Nations reserve with particular reference to people being knocked down as he said nine times: with reference to what the senator said about the houses of three Indians being invaded by the R.C.M. Police, and that sort of thing, in order to assess the impact and the effect of the activities of the R.C.M. Police on the relationship between the Six Nations elected council and the Six Nations confederacy, and the relationship that these groups of people have with the government of Canada and how it has been aggravated and upset by the activities of the R.C.M. Police.
When we get to the question of the enforcement of law we oft times find that in the very enforcement of that law people become upset; they lose their respect for the R.C.M. Police or the law enforcement officer, not because of the enforcement of the law but because the law is a bit foolish in the first place. I have specific reference to the liquor act and the liquor regulations as they apply to native Indians. This is another case in point.
Perhaps we might call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.

Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported, and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I presume the business for tomorrow will be as indicated by the house leader last night. First, a continuation of these estimates and then trade and commerce estimates.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is a
notice on Votes and Proceedings today which will provide for extension of the hours of sitting next week. That will be taken first; then the estimates of justice and then those of trade and commerce. On Monday we intend to start with item 2 on today's order paper, house in committee on the bill concerning superannuation of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; then item No. 9, second reading of a bill to amend the Criminal Code; item 10, second reading of a bill to amend the Combines Investigation Act; item
Business of the House
number 13, second reading of a bill to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act; item number 12, second reading of a bill respecting the testing, inspection and sale of seeds; then item number 15, resolution concerning crop insurance; then item number 17, a resolution concerning farm credit; and item number 18, a resolution concerning maritime coal production assistance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that sequence going to be followed on Tuesday, as well?


Howard Charles Green: I am not quite sure whether we shall finish all of that on Monday. If we do not we shall have to go on with it on Tuesday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In that order?


Howard Charles Green: Probably.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is very
cautious.
At six o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put pursuant to standing order.

Questions



ANSWERS TO 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. Hardie: 1.	What tonnage of freight has been moved by Northern Transportation Company Limited, during each of the years 1956, 1957 and 1958, from (a) Fort Smith or Bell Rock, Northwest Territories to all points within the Northwest Territories; (b) Fort Smith, Northwest Territories to Canadian central Arctic D.E.W. line installation sites; (c) Norman Wells, Northwest Territories to Canadian Arctic D.E.W. line installations; (d) Norman Wells to all other points within the Northwest Territories?
2.	Of the total tonnage moved within the Northwest Territories in 1956, 1957 and 1958, what percentage of the total tonnage was carried in each year for (a) crown corporations; (b) Canadian government departments; (c) Canadian central Arctic D.E.W. line installation points; (d) consignees other than above?
3.	What gross revenue was earned by Northern Transportation Company in each of the years 1956, 1957 and 1958, from the carriage of goods within the Northwest Territories, as follows: (a) revenue from goods carried for crown corporations; (b) revenue from goods carried for Canadian government departments; (c) revenue derived from goods carried to Canadian central D.E.W. line installation points; (d) revenue from consignees other than those contained in (a), (b) or (c)?
4.	Of the total tonnage carried by the Northern Transportation Company Limited within the Northwest Territories, what tonnage of goods controlled by the Northern Transportation Company was allocated to Canadian (private enterprise) carriers licensed by the Board of Transport Commissioners of Canada, competing with the Northern Transportation Company within the Northwest Territories during the years (a) 1956; (b) 1957; (c) 1958?
5.	What revenue was derived from the private enterprise companies from the tonnage allocated by the Northern Transportation Company Limited for carriage within the Northwest Territories during the years (a) 1956; (b) 1957; (c) 1958?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1.
1956	1957	1958(a) 19,376.6	25,443.4	30,660.6(b)	1,212.5	732.7	3,427.3(c)	7,066.3	9,014.4	12,703.0(d) 16,311.8	15,869.5	17,466.71956	1957	1958(a)	27.2%	27.2%	22.9%(b)	11.1%	5.2%	8.1%(c)	17.7%	17.4%	25.9%(d)	44.0%	50.2%	43.1%
3.
1956	1957	1958(a)	$502,740.27	$618,347.90	$568,386.92(b)	187,650.65	64,704.80	148,812.93(c)	233,837.66	269,992.69	488,727.59(d)	437,251.04	571,589.91	642,445.09$1,361,479.62 $1,524,635.10	$1,848,372.534.	1956	1957	1958(a)	nil	nil	nil(b)	nil	nil	nil(c)	nil	nil	2,146.5 tons5.	1956	1957	1958(a)	nil	nil	nil(b)	nil	nil	nil(c)	nil	nil	nilNotes: 1. No freight is carried or work	
done for any crown corporation other than Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited.
2.	The figures shown for D.E.W. line freight apply only to operations on the Mackenzie.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, MEGANTIC COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Roberge: 1.	Have plans been made by the Department of Public Works for the construction of post offices in the county of Megantic?
2.	If so, in what localities?
3.	What is the population of these localities and the estimated annual revenue for such postal stations or post offices?
Answer by:	Kon. Henri Couriemanche
(Secretary of State):
1. No.
2 and 3. See answer to No. 1.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Stage Direction]
161.	Construction, improvements and equipment,
$6,058,571.	.
Pensions and other benefits-
162.	To increase by $400 a year the allowance payable to Mrs. Alice Joynson, pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Statutes of 1914, and to increase by $300 a year the allowance payable to Mrs. Jean Laird Farrell, pursuant to Chapter 76 of the Statutes of 1927; such increases to be effective from the 1st day of April, 1959, $700.
528. Construction, improvements and equipment- further amount required, $572,436.


[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 21, 1959

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on privileges and elections-Mr. Macquarrie.
Second and third reports of standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Macnaughton.
(Translation):